Follow-up results of aortic arch cervical debranching performed with the help of a temporary crossover external carotid artery bypass for cerebral protection followed by endovascular thoracic aortic aneurysm repair

A Scoping Review of Definitions of Success in Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair

INTRODUCTION

The present standard of care to treat aortic arch pathologies is open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic arrest. With approaches for total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid arch repair becoming more diverse, understanding what is considered a successful operation is prerequisite for a rigorous comparison of techniques. This review describes the specific outcomes reported, the rates of success, and the definitions of technical and clinical success in total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid aortic arch repair.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies with patients undergoing total endovascular or hybrid extra-anatomic cervical debranching repair of the aortic arch were included. Any publications including only patients with Ishimaru zone 2 or distal repairs were excluded from this review. Studies with less than 5 patients were excluded. Data extraction was performed by one author. Data items included were study design, procedure type, procedural details, underlying pathology, type of cervical debranching, type of endograft repair, surgical outcomes, definition of cerebrovascular events, technical success, and the definition of technical success.

RESULTS

Of 1754 studies screened for review, 85 studies with 5521 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: fenestrated devices, branched devices, parallel grafting. Most studies were retrospective single-institution studies. There were no randomized controlled trials. Short-term mortality and cerebrovascular events were nearly universally reported, present in 99% and 95% of studies reviewed, respectively. Only 27% of studies provided an explicit definition for cerebrovascular events. While 75% of studies reported a technical success rate, only 45% of those studies provided explicit criteria. Clinical success rates were infrequently reported, present in only 5.9% of studies reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The definitions of technical success that were provided fell short of analogous defined reporting standards in nearly all studies, inflating technical success rates. Definitions of cerebrovascular events and technical success require stringent criteria to uniformly compare various methods of endovascular aortic arch repair. A societal consensus document for reporting standards of endovascular aortic arch repair would allow for higher-quality outcomes research.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid operations are being increasingly utilized for complex aortic arch repair. These techniques, however, can be associated with serious complications. Currently, there is no accepted metric to define technical or report clinical outcomes. Due to the paucity of high-quality data, use of these approaches may be limited in clinical practice. This study emphasizes the need for the development of standards for reporting outcomes in endovascular aortic arch repair. Future studies can then utilize these benchmarks, whcih will allow for improved efficacy and safety in these techniques.

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 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.