Six-Year Outcomes of Total Arch Replacement vs Debranching With TEVAR for Aortic Arch Pathologies: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data From Propensity Score-Matched Studies

BACKGROUND

Total arch replacement (TAR) and debranching plus thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) serve as significant therapeutic options for aortic arch pathologies. It remains unclear whether one of these approaches should be considered preferable. Our study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of these 2 approaches.

METHODS

We carried out a pooled meta-analysis of time-to-event data extracted from studies published by December 2023. Eligibility criteria included populations with any aortic arch pathology who underwent debranching plus TEVAR or TAR, propensity score-matched (PSM) studies (prospective/retrospective; single-center/multicentric), and the outcomes included follow-up for overall survival/mortality and/or reinterventions.

RESULTS

Eleven PSM studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 1142 patients (571 matched pairs). We did not observe any statistically significant difference in the risk of all-cause death between the groups (hazard ratio [HR]=1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91-1.56, p=0.202), but patients who underwent TAR had a significantly lower risk of late aortic reinterventions compared with patients who underwent debranching plus TEVAR (HR=0.38, 95% CI=0.23-0.64, p<0.001). Our meta-regression analyses for all-cause mortality identified statistically significant coefficients for age (coefficient=-0.047; p=0.012) and type A aortic dissections (coefficient=0.012; p=0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Debranching plus TEVAR and TAR demonstrate no statistically significant differences in terms of survival in patients with aortic arch pathologies, but TAR is associated with lower risk of late aortic reinterventions over time. Although older patients may benefit more from debranching plus TEVAR rather than from TAR, patients with dissections may benefit more from TAR.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Although the 2 strategies seem to be equally valuable in terms of survival, total aortic arch replacement (when compared with debranching plus TEVAR to treat patients with aortic arch pathologies) is associated with reduction of late aortic reinterventions over time in patients with and without aortic dissections. However, we should consider debranching plus TEVAR in older patients as it is associated with lower risk of death in this population. The novelty of our study lies in the fact that, instead of comparing study-level effect estimates, we analyzed the outcomes with reconstructed time-to-event data. This offered us the opportunity of performing our analyses with a mathematically appropriate model which consider events and time; however, these findings might be under the influence of treatment allocation bias.

Current techniques of repair of aortic arch pathologies and the role of the aortic team

The treatment of aortic arch pathologies is becoming progressively more complex and multidisciplinary. Despite progresses in open surgical techniques, the high rate of surgical morbidity and mortality, especially in frail and elderly patients, has led to the development of alternative treatment options to conventional open surgery such as hybrid and endovascular procedures. Our purpose is to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches and investigate the role of a dedicated aortic team in the choice of the most appropriate treatment for each patient.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Open Versus Zone 0/1 Endovascular Aortic Repair for Arch Aneurysm: A Propensity Score-Matched Study from the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although open surgical repair (OSR) is the gold standard for treating arch aneurysms, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) may be a less invasive alternative. However, it remains unclear which of the 2 methods yields better outcomes. In this study, we compared the perioperative outcomes of both procedures for arch aneurysms using a nationwide surgical database.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent elective aortic repair for true arch aneurysms were extracted from the National Clinical Database of Japan. Patients who underwent OSR and Zone 0/1 TEVAR were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores and their mortality and morbidity rates were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 2,815 and 1,125 patients underwent OSR and Zone 0/1 TEVAR, respectively. After propensity score matching, 1,058 patients were included in both groups. Compared with OSR, Zone 0/1 TEVAR was associated with a significantly higher incidence of stroke (5.8 vs. 10.0%, P < 0.001) and paraplegia/paraparesis (1.6 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in the 30-day and operative mortality rates between the 2 groups (2.2 vs. 2.7% and 4.5 vs. 5.4%, respectively). In the Zone 0/1 TEVAR group, postoperative computed tomography was performed in 92.4% of patients, and types I and III endoleaks were identified in 6.4% and 1.1% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Zone 0/1 TEVAR has higher incidences of stroke and paraplegia/paraparesis than OSR, with a risk of postoperative endoleaks. Resolving these problems is the key for expanding the application of Zone 0/1 TEVAR and in the meantime OSR remains the gold standard for surgically fit patients.

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.

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

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

Aortic Arch Repair Using Open and Hybrid Techniques: A Systematic Review

Early surgical intervention is critical for treatment of aortic arch aneurysms and dissections, but limited comprehensive data exist to define the optimal approach for surgical management with respect to postoperative outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the 2 most common surgical approaches-total arch replacement and hybrid arch repair. We referenced the electronic PubMed database reporting on outcomes for these surgical approaches from inception to June 2022. Our initial search query returned a total of 2,517 records. All records were independently screened for adherence to our inclusion criteria and a total of 12 retrospective cohort studies were identified as appropriate for inclusion. Across the included studies, a total of 618 patients underwent hybrid repair, as compared to 2,104 patients who underwent total arch replacement. We found that most of the literature supported the findings of similar rates of permanent neurologic dysfunction, acute kidney injury, and short-term mortality between approaches and higher postoperative reintervention rates following hybrid repair. Reported outcomes of studies included in this review often conflicted regarding midterm and long-term survival, as well as hospital and intensive care unit length of stay following open and hybrid repair. Future studies should address midterm and long-term survival with a prospective study design.

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.

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.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Between Branched Endograft and Chimney Endograft Technique in Zone 0 Landing

PURPOSE

Zone 0 landing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has recently gained increasing attention for the treatment of high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of total endovascular aortic arch repair between branched TEVAR (bTEVAR) and chimney TEVAR (cTEVAR) in the landing zone (LZ) 0.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, and observational cohort study. From January 2010 to March 2020, 40 patients (bTEVAR, n=25; cTEVAR, n=15; median age: 79 years) were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 4.1 years. These patients were considered unsuitable for open surgical treatment.

RESULTS

All procedures were successful and no cases of conversion to open repair were noted during the 30-day postoperative period. The 30-day mortality was 2.5% (n=1; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [1 of 15, 6.7%]; p=0.375), the perioperative stroke rate was 10.0% (n=4; bTEVAR [4 of 25, 16.0%] vs cTEVAR [0 of 15, 0%], p=0.278), and type 1a endoleak rate was 15.0% (n=6; bTEVAR [0 of 25, 0%] vs cTEVAR [6 of 15, 40.0%], p=0.001). The risk factor for stroke was atheroma grade of ≥2 in the brachiocephalic artery (p<0.001). The risk factor for type 1a endoleak was cTEVAR (p=0.001). The 8-year survival rate was 49.9%. The aorta-related death-free rate and aortic event-free rate at 8 years were 94.4% (bTEVAR: 95.5% vs cTEVAR: 93.3%, p=0.504) and 60.7% (bTEVAR: 70.7% vs cTEVAR: 40.0%, p=0.048), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Total endovascular aortic arch repair using bTEVAR and cTEVAR is feasible for the treatment of aortic arch diseases in high-risk patients who are unsuitable for open surgery. However, as the rate of stroke is high, strict preoperative evaluation to prevent stroke is needed. No rupture of the aneurysm was observed in cTEVAR, but patients should be selected carefully because of the high incidence of type 1a endoleak.

National Outcomes of Elective Hybrid Arch Debranching with Endograft Exclusion versus Total Arch Replacement Procedures: Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database

OBJECTIVE

 Hybrid arch procedures (arch vessel debranching with thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair [TEVAR] coverage of arch pathology) have been presented as an alternative to total arch replacement (TAR). But multicenter-based analyses of these two procedures are needed to benchmark the field and establish areas of improvement.

METHODS

 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database from July 2014 to December 2015 was queried for elective TAR and hybrid arch procedures. Demographics and operative characteristics were compared and stepwise variable selection was used to create a risk-set used for adjustment of all multivariable models.

RESULTS

 A total of 1,011 patients met inclusion criteria, 884 underwent TAR, and 127 had hybrid arch procedures. TAR patients were younger (mean age: 62.7 ± 13.3 vs. 66.7 ± 11.9 years; p = 0.001) and had less peripheral vascular disease (34.0 vs. 49.6%; p < 0.001) and preoperative dialysis (1.7 vs. 4.7%; p = 0.026), but similar history of stroke (p = 0.91)/cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.52). TAR patients had more concomitant procedures (60 vs. 34.6%; p < 0.0001). TAR patients had lower mortality (6.7 vs. 12.6%; p = 0.02), stroke (6.9 vs. 15%; p = 0.002), paralysis (1.8 vs. 7.1%; p = 0.002), renal failure (4.6 vs. 8.7%; p = 0.045), and STS morbidity (34.2 vs. 42.5%; p = 0.067). Composite mortality, stroke, and paralysis were significantly lower with TAR (11.5 vs. 25.2%; p = 0.0001). After risk adjustment, analysis showed hybrid arch procedures imparted an increased odds of mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.91, p = 0.046), stroke (OR = 2.3, p = 0.005), and composite endpoint of stroke or mortality (OR = 2.31, p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSION

 TAR remains the gold standard for elective aortic arch pathologies. Despite risk adjustment, hybrid arch procedures were associated with increased risk of mortality and stroke, advocating for careful adoption of these strategies.

Conventional open versus hybrid aortic arch repair: a meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies

Background

Comparison of conventional (open) surgical versus hybrid aortic arch repair remains debatable. While the majority of previous comparative studies including meta-analyses contained primarily risk-unadjusted cohorts, those focusing on propensity-matched comparisons were limited by their small sample size. We aimed to compare outcomes of these two approaches through an up-to-date search and meta-analysis of the best evidence currently available in the literature.

Methods

The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library from inception to September 2019 were searched to identify articles reporting propensity-score matching data on open versus hybrid aortic arch repair. Patients’ baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis. Heterogeneity and biases were assessed among the included studies.

Results

Five studies, including a total of 378 patients (189 pairs), were included in the study. The two groups were similar in patients’ baseline characteristics. Stroke rate favoured the open group [2.1% versus 14.3%, OR 0.18 (0.07, 0.46), P=0.0004, I²=0%]. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to paraplegia. The hybrid group had numerically higher short-term mortality, but lower rate of acute renal failure requiring dialysis. There was a statistically significant difference between the mid-term survivals of the open and hybrid groups, with lower pooled mortality seen for the open group at 1-year and 2-years (P=0.02).

Conclusions

Open and hybrid repairs do not offer equivalent outcomes. Compared with hybrid aortic arch repair, conventional surgical aortic repair could be associated with favourable outcomes including postoperative stroke. Hybrid repair does not appear to provide better survival. Operative approaches should be carefully selected in treating aortic arch pathology.

[Hybrid repair of aortic arch aneurysm]

BACKGROUND

The management of aortic arch aneurysms is challenging. If conventional surgery cannot be performed in high risk patients, endovascular treatment is confronted to the problem of endoleaks at long term. However, the hybrid repair combining a first surgical step and a second endovascular step is a new technique recently introduced in the therapeutic alternatives of aortic arch aneurysm but its long-term results are not well known.

METHODS

We report a series of four patients who received hybrid treatment for aortic arch aneurysms in our department between 2016 and 2018.

RESULTS

These were 3 men and 1 woman with an average age of 63 years [55-80 years]. All were hypertensive and only one patient had diabetes. The aneurysm was symptomatic of chest pain in all cases and it was ruptured in only one case. Preoperatively, the hemodynamic state was stable in the four patients with a mean aneurysm diameter of 60 mm [48-79 mm] on CT angiography and the landing zone was zone 0 in all cases. Under general anesthesia, the 1st step was surgical with the performance of an aorto-bicarotid bypass associated with a re-implantation of the left subclavian artery and a disconnection of the supraortic trunks. The 2nd stage was endovascular by the femoral route; with release of an aortic stent graft covering the ostia of all supraortic trunks. The final angiographic check-up showed complete exclusion of the aneurysm in all cases. The immediate postoperative follow-up was straightforward except for the onset of septic shock and death in a patient with an aneurysm ruptured in the left pulmonary branch initially. The mean follow-up was 12 months with a CT scan control which confirms the complete exclusion of the aneurysm and the absence of endoleak.

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Type II hybrid arch repair versus total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk: a propensity score-matched analysis

 

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the objective outcomes of type II hybrid arch repair (HAR) and total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (TAR with FET).

METHODS

Data from 528 patients who underwent aortic arch repair from January 2017 to June 2019 were collected, which consisted of 175 type II HAR and 353 TAR with FET. The propensity score-matched analysis identified a subgroup of 90 pairs. Perioperative data and mid-term follow-up results were assessed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the composite adverse events (type II HAR, 20.6%, 36/175 vs TAR with FET, 17.8%, 63/353, P = 0.450). Multivariable logistic analysis of the 528 patients showed that the procedure type (type II HAR or TAR with FET) was not associated with composite adverse events, 30-day mortality or stroke. The 3-year survival rates were 84.8% in the type II HAR group and 90.1% in the TAR with FET group (P = 0.12). The 3-year reintervention-free rates in the type II HAR and TAR with FET groups were 98.7% and 96.5% (P = 0.22), respectively. After matching, no significant difference was found in the incidence of composite adverse events or the 3-year survival and reintervention-free rates.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant clinical differences were found in the early and mid-term outcomes of type II HAR and TAR with FET. The long-term outcomes remain to be investigated. Careful patient selection for individualized approaches is the key to taking full advantage of the 2 surgical procedures.

The Initial Experience on Branched and Fenestrated Endografts in the Aortic Arch. A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Branched and fenestrated endografts (fEVAR/bEVAR) are complex techniques used to treat thoracic aorta pathologies involving the aortic arch. This systematic review aims to determine all the reported results regarding these techniques in the aortic arch, in order to describe their clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed, considering all articles published until October 2019. PubMed, Cochrane database resources were used. The protocol of the study was previously registered in the Prospero database (CRD42020147037). Primary exclusion criteria included opinion articles, merely technique descriptions, articles without the follow-up of at least 1 month, studies conducted on animals, mixed treatments, and ongoing trials without published data. Included variables were study design, aortic pathology, type of endovascular technique (fEVAR/bEVAR), endograft manufacturing, number of fenestrations/branches and type of bridge stents. Technical success, complications during surgery and follow-up were also described.

RESULTS

From a total of 164 articles, 29 (28 retrospective, 1 prospective) were analyzed with a total of 693 cases (341 fEVAR and 352 bEVAR). The most common indications for repair were aneurysm (54.8%) and dissection (40%). Only fEVAR and bEVAR were considered, but different endograft materials and techniques were used and, therefore, reported upon in the current review. Zenith Alpha Thoracic Endovascular Graft was the most representative (24% of cases). Custom made, off-the-shelf, physician modified and in situ fenestrated endografts were also used in 39%, 22.4%, 18.6% and 18.9% of cases, respectively. Bridge stents were implanted in the 50.5% of cases. Technical success rate was 96%. The main intraoperative complication was the endoleak (5.2%) followed by stroke (4.8%). The in-hospital mortality was 2.5%. The mean follow-up was 18.5 months. The mortality related to the main operation during follow-up was 3.2% and not directly related to the main operation was 11.3%. During the follow-up, 92 cases (13.3%) in total had to undergo through a reintervention, 46.7% with endovascular repair and 26.1% with open surgical repair (the rest were not specified).

CONCLUSION

published experience with bEVAR and fEVAR in the aortic arch showed acceptable short-term effectiveness and safety. More well-conducted prospective clinical studies with long term follow-up, combined with comparative meta-analysis, are needed to elucidate the real benefit of those endovascular techniques in the aortic arch pathology.

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.

Early outcomes of hybrid type II arch repair versus total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk in acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of hybrid type II arch repair (HAR) and total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (TAR with FET) for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection patients.

METHODS

From January 2017 to June 2019, the clinical data of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection patients in a single centre were retrospectively reviewed; there were 92 cases of HAR and 268 cases of TAR with FET, with 56 pairs by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

After matching, the composite end points including 30-day mortality, stroke, paraplegia, renal failure, hepatic failure, reintubation or tracheotomy and low cardiac output syndrome were comparable (21.4%, 12/56 in the HAR group vs 21.4%, 12/56 in the TAR with FET group, P = 1.000). The rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) was significantly lower in the HAR group (58.9%, 33/56 vs 80.4%, 45/56, P = 0.031). The distribution of AKI stage according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria was different (P = 0.039), with more patients suffering from high-grade AKI in the TAR with FET group. Multivariable logistic analysis showed that the procedure type (HAR or TAR with FET) was not an independent predictor of composite adverse events or stroke. HAR was identified as a protective factor against AKI (odds ratio 0.485, 95% confidence interval 0.287-0.822; P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection, no significant differences were found in early outcomes between the 2 groups, but HAR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of AKI.

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

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

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.

Single Institution Experience with Hybrid Endovascular and Surgical Repairs Involving the Distal Aortic Arch

BACKGROUND

A hybrid approach of aortic arch and descending aorta pathology, involving surgical debranching of the great vessels after endovascular stenting, has been increasingly used as an alternative to entirely open surgical repair. This study reviews and reports our single-center experience with hybrid aortic arch repair over the span of a decade.

METHODS

A total of 43 patients who underwent hybrid arch repair from 2005 to 2015 were identified. Key endpoints included the presenting pathology, perioperative details, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age was 64.9 years at the commencement of surgery (61.4% men [n = 27] and 38.6% women [n = 16]). Presenting pathologies included aneurysms (77%), dissections (16%), pseudoaneurysms (5%), and transections (2%). While most procedures were multistaged, single-stage interventions were completed for 16.3% (n = 7) of patients. Emergent surgeries were performed in 23.3% of cases; the remaining 76.7% of cases were elective. The proximal extents of endovascular repair were zone 0 (n = 4), zone 1 (n = 12), zone 2 (n = 20), and zone 3 (n = 1). The remaining 6 patients had had aberrant or anomalous distal origins of a great vessel that required debranching. Technical success rates of surgical revascularizations and subsequent endovascular stenting were both 100%. The 30-day perioperative event rates for mortality, stroke, and cardiac events were 7.0% (n = 3), 4.7% (n = 2), and 9.3% (n = 4), respectively. At the end of 2-year follow-up, total mortality and stroke rates were 11.6% (n = 5) and 7.0% (n = 3), respectively. The 2-year primary patency of the revascularizations was 97.8%, and the associated primary-assisted patency was 100%. Secondary interventions were necessary for 32% (n = 12) of the patients, 67% of which (n = 8) were warranted because of endoleaks. The remaining secondary interventions were required to resolve device migration (n = 1), stent graft stenosis (n = 1), and disease progression (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid approaches are viable alternatives to entirely open surgical treatments of acute and chronic aortic arch pathology and may be particularly attractive for high-risk patients. Surgical revascularizations appear durable, but endovascular reintervention is not uncommon and highlights the need for careful surveillance after repair.

Aortic arch aneurysms and dissection-open repair is the gold standard

The aortic arch repair is one of the most complex surgeries and carries a high risk of complications as well as mortality. Since 1975, when the arch repair was first done by Randall B. Griepp using hypothermic circulatory arrest, many new technologies were introduced. But even with the use of antegrade and retrograde perfusion techniques and improvement of surgical techniques and grafts, the rate of mortality, cerebral, spinal, and visceral damage was much higher as compared to any other cardiac surgeries. With further developments aimed at less invasive approaches, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) along with de-branching of supra-aortic vessels or the frozen elephant trunk was introduced. Here, in this article, we review the myriad of approaches to the aortic arch and have come to a conclusion that while traditional open surgery is considered as the gold standard for treatment of extensive aortic arch pathologies, one school of thought suggests hybrid techniques such as the frozen elephant trunk and aortic arch vessel de-branching as more appropriate procedures for high-risk patients, where co-morbidities may contraindicate cardiopulmonary bypass and longer operative times required for traditional repair. No randomized trials are present to compare between open and hybrid or endovascular procedure in normal or high-risk patients. The meta-analysis of most of the studies defines open surgery as the gold standard for arch pathology because the hybrid procedures did not provide any proven survival benefits or decrease in stroke rate and spinal ischemia when compared to open surgery in early, mid, or long-term results.

Efficacy of ascending aortic banding technique concomitant with type I hybrid aortic arch repair in high-risk patients

Banding of the ascending aorta has been introduced as a less complex procedure to optimize the proximal landing zone of the stent graft in hybrid aortic arch surgery. However, data about the long-term results and effects of this technique are still limited. We aimed to study the efficacy of banding of the ascending aorta in hybrid aortic arch repair. The study included 11 high-risk patients with dilated ascending aorta (wider than 38 mm in diameter) undergoing ascending aortic banding for hybrid arch repair. Clinical outcomes, including technical success, endoleaks, perioperative mortality and morbidity, and sequential remodeling of the ascending aorta were investigated. The average diameter of the ascending aorta had been reduced (p = 0.02) from 42.1 mm (range = 39.0-46.4) to 37.2 mm (range = 35.6-38.6) after banding procedure. The technical success rate was 100.0%. No type I endoleak occurred, but 2 cases of distal stent graft-induced new entry required re-interventions. The 5-year survival and freedom from aortic events rates both were 81.8%. The ascending aortic diameter remained stable and no proximal migration of the stent graft was observed during the study period. The 5-year results validated the durability of this therapeutic modality, especially in high-risk patients.

Hybrid Repair of a Saccular Aortic Arch Aneurysm Ruptured in the Left Pulmonary Bronchus

The rupture of aortic arch aneurysm is rare but serious and a life-threatening pathologic condition. We report a case of an 80-year-old woman who was admitted to our department for a rupture of a saccular aortic arch aneurysm in the left pulmonary bronchus. There was no landing zone in the aortic arch. First, we performed a total supra-aortic debranching and a bifurcated graft bypass from the ascending aorta to both the innominate artery and the left carotid artery. Then, we implanted in the aortic arch an endoprosthesis covering the origin of all supra-aortic trunks. Final angiography was satisfactory. The patient died 8 days later due to pulmonary-originated septic shock. Aortic arch hybrid procedures show a variety of severe complications associated with a relevant morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rate. Prognosis of rupture depends not only on the hemorrhage caused but also on the potential infection.

Treatment of aortic arch aneurysms: Open surgery or hybrid procedure?

Background

This study aims to compare the results of hybrid procedure and open surgery for the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms.

Methods

Twenty-six p atients (21 m ales, 5 females; m ean a ge 56.6±12.4 years; range, 20 to 83 years) who underwent total aortic arch replacement for aortic arch aneurysm between January 2004 and January 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: open conventional surgery group (group 1, n=15) and hybrid procedure (total debranching of the aortic arch and simultaneous endovascular stent) group (group 2, n=11). Survival rates and need for reoperation were compared between the groups.

Results

The hybrid procedure was found to be more favorable in terms of postoperative revision, extubation period, and drainage amounts. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the survival rates, need for reoperation, and major adverse cardiovascular events between the groups.

Conclusion

Our study results suggest that conventional open surgery and hybrid procedure are similar in terms of survival and short-to-mid-term results in patients undergoing total aortic arch replacement for aortic arch aneurysm.

Long-term survival and related outcomes for hybrid versus traditional arch repair-a meta-analysis

Background

Surgical interventions for aortic aneurysm and dissection remain associated with high risk of mortality and morbidity. Advances in operative techniques have led to a variety of options for the cardiac surgeon, including endovascular and hybrid approaches. Debate remains over which of these techniques provide optimal outcomes for the patient. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate long term patient survival and identify short-term outcomes for conventional (open) aortic arch repair and hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR).

Methods

An electronic literature search was conducted according to predefined inclusion criteria for hybrid and conventional aortic arch repair surgery. Digitized survival data was extracted from identified studies' Kaplan-Meier curves and used to re-create individual patient data for aggregated survival analysis. Post-operative morbidity and mortality were analyzed using random-effects model meta-analysis.

Results

Nine studies were included, containing 841 hybrid arch repair and 1,182 conventional arch repair patients. Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all patients demonstrated higher survival in hybrid arch repair patients than conventional arch repair patients, however, this was noted to be sensitive to results from a particular study. Overall results showed for the hybrid repair cohort, survival at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 years was 87%, 85%, 83%, 78% and 75%, respectively. Survival in the conventional repair cohort at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 years was 84%, 82%, 80%, 75% and 71%, respectively. Statistically significant findings from meta-analysis showed hybrid arch repair was associated with lower risk of re-operation for bleeding, while conventional arch repair was associated with reduced risk of spinal cord injury.

Conclusions

Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all studies showed long-term survival outcomes for hybrid and conventional aortic arch repair patients are heterogeneous and sensitive to the results of particular studies. Superior results from particular centres and the low number of comparative studies mean that more data is required to make definitive findings with regards to the long-term survival outcomes of either procedure. Hybrid arch repair was associated with lower risk of re-operation for bleeding, while conventional arch repair was associated with lower risk of spinal cord injury. Surgeons should consider their own center's experience and patient suitability when deciding between hybrid or conventional aortic repair techniques.

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.

Open repair techniques in the aortic arch are still superior

Conventional arch replacement can be carried out in a great majority of patients. Hybrid procedures are often as invasive and technically difficult as conventional ones. Moreover, their immediate results are, in many reported experiences, not better and their long-term results less favourable than the ones observed with conventional methods. So, yes, the open conventional arch replacement is still "the gold standard".

Early results of total arch replacement under partial sternotomy

OBJECTIVE

Partial sternotomy with limited skin incision has been utilized for cardiac surgery. We, therefore, started to apply the partial sternotomy for total arch replacement since 2013 in selected cases. The aim of this study reported the results of our early experiences.

METHODS

Between July 2013 and December 2015, we retrospectively reviewed 15 cases (median age 72, range 67-84, 15 male) who underwent total arch replacement thorough partial sternotomy. All procedures were performed under hypothermic circulatory arrest with selective cerebral perfusion.

RESULTS

Median skin incision was 9 cm (range 7-15 cm, 5.3% of height) and partial sternotomy consisted of 14 upper and 1 lower partial sternotomy (L shape 8 and T shape 7 cases). Median operation time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, ischemic heart time, selective cerebral perfusion time and hypothermic circulatory arrest time were 485 [360-770], 223 [1174-270], 146 [100-163], 154 [116-189], and 69 [45-90] minutes, respectively. Median duration of mechanical ventilator dependent time was 12 h [5-38]. Median length of ICU stay and hospital stay were 3 [1-7], and 18 [13-76] days, respectively. Thirty days and in-hospital mortality were 0% without any neurological complications. There are two aorta-related reoperation due to graft inducing hemolytic anemia and no aorta-related death during follow-up (median 954, range 702-1462 days).

CONCLUSION

The early results of total arch replacement through partial sternotomy were satisfactory. The partial sternotomy could be a good option for total arch replacement in selected patients.

Hybrid Endovascular Aortic Arch Reconstruction for Acute Aortic Dissection: An Endovascular Bridge Technique for Complex Anatomy

Acute type A aortic dissections starting at the arch pose a challenge for cardiac surgeons. Open surgical repair requires deep hypothermic circulatory arrest for arch reconstruction and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Hybrid aortic repair techniques, with open arch debranching and thoracic endovascular aortic repair, have been employed in high-risk cases and challenging aortic pathology. Herein, we present a case of a 33-year-old African American male with a history of open thoracoabdominal aortic reconstruction and femoral-femoral artery bypass for a type B dissection who subsequently presented with new-onset chest pain and was found to have a retrograde type A dissection of a bovine arch with multiple dissection flaps and possible contrast extravasation on chest computed tomography. Endovascular reconstruction of the aortic arch using a hybrid technique was utilized and proved to be feasible and further should be considered when complex anatomy limits traditional surgical options.

Hybrid operation versus the chimney technique for reconstruction of a single aortic arch branch: a single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

Both hybrid and chimney techniques are used for reconstruction of supra-arch branches during thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR). Our objective was to summarize our experience with reconstruction of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) or left subclavian artery (LSA) and evaluate the indications for these 2 strategies.

METHODS

The records of patients treated with hybrid or chimney TEVAR when 1 aortic branch (LSA/LCCA) needed to be covered were reviewed retrospectively. The angulations of the LSA and the LCCA were measured for analysis.

RESULTS

The average ages of the patients in the hybrid (n = 26) and chimney groups (n = 31) were 52.6 (SD 12.7) and 55.4 (SD 11.3) years, respectively. The immediate type I endoleak rate was significantly higher in the chimney group (58.1% vs 15.4%, P = 0.001). No in-hospital deaths occurred in either group, and the follow-up mortality rate was 11.5% in the hybrid group and 3.2% in the chimney (P = 0.32) group, whereas the aortic-related mortality rates were 3.8% and 0%, respectively (P = 0.46). The rates of type I endoleaks were significantly higher if the angles of the LSA/LCCA were larger than 38.3°/37.9° [LSA: >38.3°, 100% (10 of 10) vs < 38.3°, 10% (1 of 10), P < 0.001; LCCA: >37.9°, 100% (6 of 6) vs < 37.9°, 20% (1 of 5), P = 0.015].

CONCLUSIONS

Branch angulation and oversizing are crucial factors for type I endoleaks and should be taken into account when choosing the surgical procedure. Our results indicated that the chimney TEVAR is more suitable in cases with small target branch angulation. Additional oversizing may help to prevent post-TEVAR endoleaks.

Hybrid repair of aortic arch aneurysms: a comprehensive review

Open total arch replacement (TAR) has become safer with refinements in cerebral protection techniques. The frequent extension of aortic arch aneurysms into the descending thoracic aorta customarily requires a two-staged conventional elephant trunk procedure, carrying relatively high mortality and morbidity risks and high rates of rupture in the interval between the two open surgeries. The technical demands and invasive nature of TAR has therefore precluded many high-risk patients from being surgical candidates for aneurysm repair. As a result, hybrid techniques and approaches to the aortic arch have become common since the adoption of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and advancement in the commercial grafts that are available. The results of hybrid aortic arch repairs have been encouraging, though with higher rates of re-interventions than TAR and variable reported rates of stroke and spinal cord ischemia. The aim of this publication is to review the current literature on hybrid repair of aortic arch aneurysms.

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Total Aortic Arch Reconstruction

The cumulative experience with endovascular aortic repair in the descending thoracic and infrarenal aorta has led to increased interest in endovascular aortic arch reconstruction. Open total arch replacement is a robust operation that can be performed with excellent results. However, it requires cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest and, therefore, may not be tolerated by all patients. Minimally invasive techniques have been considered as an alternative and include hybrid arch debranching, parallel stent graft deployment in the chimney and snorkel configurations, and complete endovascular branched reconstruction with multi-branched devices. This review discusses the evolving use of endovascular techniques in the management of aortic arch pathology and considers their relevance in an era of safe and durable open aortic arch reconstruction.

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.