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.

A meta-analysis on the effect of proximal landing zone location on stroke and mortality in thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the aortic arch may increase the opportunity for stroke owing to disruption of cerebral circulation and embolization. In this study, a systematic meta-analysis was performed to examine the impact of proximal landing zone location on stroke and 30-day mortality after TEVAR.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched for all original studies of TEVAR reporting outcomes of stroke or 30-day mortality for at least two adjacent proximal landing zones, based on the Ishimaru classification scheme. Forest plots were created using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). An I2 of <40% was regarded as minimal heterogeneity. A P value of <.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of the 57 studies examined, a total of 22,244 patients (male 73.1%, aged 71.9 ± 11.5 years) were included in the meta-analysis, with 1693 undergoing TEVAR with proximal landing zone 0, 1931 with zone 1, 5839 with zone 2, and 3089 with zone 3 and beyond. The overall risk of clinically evident stroke was 2.7% for zones ≥3, 6.6% for zone 2, 7.7% for zone 1, and 14.2% for zone 0. More proximal landing zones were associated with higher risks of stroke compared with distal (zone 2 vs ≥3: RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.43-3.20; P = .0002; I2 = 56%; zone 1 vs 2: RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.20-1.82; P = .0002; I2 = 0%; zone 0 vs 1: RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.52-2.24; P < .00001; I2 = 0%). Mortality at 30 days was 2.9% for zones ≥3, 2.4% for zone 2, 3.7% for zone 1, and 9.3% for zone 0. Zone 0 was associated with higher mortality compared with zone 1 (RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.75-3.03; P < .00001; I2 = 0%). No significant differences were found in 30-day mortality between zones 1 and 2 (P = .13) and between zone 2 and zones ≥3 (P = .87).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of stroke from TEVAR is lowest in zone 3 and beyond, increasing significantly as the landing zone is moved proximally. Furthermore, perioperative mortality is increased with zone 0 compared with zone 1. Therefore, risk of stent grafting in the proximal arch should be weighed against alternative surgical or nonoperative options. It is anticipated that the risk of stroke will improve with further development of stent graft technology and implantation technique.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the proximal landing zone 0

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair, initially intended for thoracic aortic disease treatment, has extended its application to the proximal zone of the aorta. However, the safety and surgical outcomes of extending the proximal landing zone into the ascending aorta (zone 0) in selected cases remain unknown. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of zone 0 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to obtain a deeper understanding of its safety, outcomes, and trends over time.

Methods

A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, from January, 1997 to January, 2022. Only studies involving zone 0 TEVAR were included. The retrieved data from the eligible studies included basic study characteristics, 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate, indications, comorbidities, stent grafts, techniques, and complications. Summary effect measures of the primary outcomes were obtained by logarithmically pooling the data with an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects model.

Results

Fifty-three studies with 1,013 patients were eligible for analysis. The pooled 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate of zone 0 TEVAR was 7.49%. The rates of post-operative stroke, type Ia endoleak, retrograde type A aortic dissection, and spinal cord ischemia were 8.95, 9.01, 5.72, and 4.12%, respectively.

Conclusions

Although many novel stent grafts and techniques targeting zone 0 TEVAR are being investigated, a consensus on technique and device selection in zone 0 TEVAR is yet to be established in current practice. Furthermore, the post-operative stroke rate is relatively high, while other complication rates and perioperative death rate are comparable to those of TEVAR for other aortic zones.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

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.

Hybrid and frozen elephant trunk for total arch replacement in DeBakey type I dissection

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to determine whether hybrid aortic repair yields superior outcomes compared with the conventional surgical approach for DeBakey type I aortic dissection.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with DeBakey type I dissection admitted to Fuwai Hospital between January 2010 and December 2016 showed that 815 patients (86.9%) underwent open total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (frozen elephant trunk group) and 122 (13.1%) underwent hybrid aortic arch repair without deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (hybrid group). We selected 109 pairs of patients for propensity score matching. Outcomes included early postoperative death, a composite of complications, dissected aorta remodeling, long-term survival, and freedom from reoperation.

RESULTS

Early mortality and complication rates were lower in the hybrid group, but the difference was not statistically significant (9.2% vs 17.4%, P = .073; 15.6% vs 25.7%, P = .066). The rates of postoperative renal insufficiency was significantly lower in the hybrid group than in the frozen elephant trunk group (22.9% vs 38.5%, P = .013); liver insufficiency and paraplegia were significantly lower in the hybrid group than in the frozen elephant trunk group (20.2% vs 33.9%, P = .022; 0% vs 6.4%, P = .014). After matched, the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survivals were 87.6%, 86.3%, and 82.2%, respectively, in the hybrid group and 80.7%, 76.5%, and 74.6% (P = .071), respectively, in the frozen elephant trunk group.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid aortic arch repair is a viable alternative treatment for patients with DeBakey type I aortic dissection, which improves outcomes and promotes remodeling of the dissected thoracic aorta.

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.

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".

Repair of Distal Aortic Arch Aneurysms by Left Subclavian Artery Transposition with Stented Elephant Trunk Implantation

BACKGROUND

Repair of distal aortic arch aneurysms remains technically challenging using conventional open surgery due to its location. Several techniques, including a conventional prosthetic graft replacement and a hybrid technique, were introduced to manipulate this lesion. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with left subclavian artery (LSCA) transposition with stented elephant trunk implantation for repair of distal aortic arch aneurysms.

METHODS

From May 2009 to December 2014, 9 men (mean age 55 ± 16 years) with distal aortic arch aneurysms underwent LSCA transposition with stented elephant trunk implantation under hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass with antegrade selective cerebral perfusion via a median sternotomy. One case had a history of endovascular abdominal aortic repair.

RESULTS

There was no in-hospital death. The mean time of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay was 22 ± 9 and 53 ± 17 hr, respectively. No severe complications occurred in this group. All patients survived and were discharged. No patient died during the follow-up period. Postoperative computed tomography revealed good patency of the anastomotic site between the LSCA and the left common carotid artery.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory surgical results and follow-up outcomes were achieved by simultaneous repair of proximal aortic lesions and complete seal of the lesion involving the distal aortic arch and proximal descending aorta using LSCA transposition with implantation of a stented elephant trunk. Encouraging outcomes favor this technique for distal aortic arch aneurysm.