Cardiopulmonary bypass associated acute kidney injury: better understanding and better prevention

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is a common technique in cardiac surgery but is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI), which carries considerable morbidity and mortality. In this review, we explore the range and definition of CPB-associated AKI and discuss the possible impact of different disease recognition methods on research outcomes. Furthermore, we introduce the specialized equipment and procedural intricacies associated with CPB surgeries. Based on recent research, we discuss the potential pathogenesis of AKI that may result from CPB, including compromised perfusion and oxygenation, inflammatory activation, oxidative stress, coagulopathy, hemolysis, and endothelial damage. Finally, we explore current interventions aimed at preventing and attenuating renal impairment related to CPB, and presenting these measures from three perspectives: (1) avoiding CPB to eliminate the fundamental impact on renal function; (2) optimizing CPB by adjusting equipment parameters, optimizing surgical procedures, or using improved materials to mitigate kidney damage; (3) employing pharmacological or interventional measures targeting pathogenic factors.

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.

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.

Expert opinion: How to treat type IA endoleakage

Type Ia endoleaks due to failed sealing or loss of landing zone and the adequate management thereof remain crucial for long-term therapeutic success following TEVAR. This expert opinion summarizes our institutional experience with endovascular, open surgical, and hybrid techniques in the context of recent scientific publications. The rapid turnover of technical innovations, but most importantly outcome data demonstrate the requirement for increasingly patient-tailored treatment strategies and the need for specialized aortic centers. The latter should offer a complete range of treatment options, an adequate perioperative management, and the highest level of multidisciplinary expertise.

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.

Endovascular versus conventional open surgical repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are a life-threatening condition which remain difficult to treat. Endovascular and open surgical repair (OSR) provide treatment options for patients, however, due to the lack of clinical trials comparing these, the optimum treatment option is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of endovascular repair versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAAs.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 26 April 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing endovascular repair to OSR for TAAAs for inclusion in the review. The main outcomes of interest were prevention of aneurysm rupture (participants without aneurysm rupture up to 5 years from intervention), aneurysm-related mortality (30 days and 12 months), all-cause mortality, spinal cord ischaemia (paraplegia, paraparesis), visceral arterial branch compromise causing mesenteric ischaemia or renal failure, and rate of reintervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts identified from the searches to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection, risk of bias assessment, and analysis in accordance with Cochrane recommendations. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of endovascular compared to OSR in patients with TAAAs and are unable to provide any evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs addressing this objective are necessary, however conducting such studies will be logistically and ethically challenging for this life-threatening disease.

Anaesthetic-surgical guide in the treatment of ascending aorta and surgery of the ascending aorta and aortic arch. Consensus document of the Spanish Society of Cardiovascular and Endovascular Surgery and the Sociedad of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy

Aortic pathology is always a challenge for the clinician, and must be diagnosed and treated by a multidisciplinary team due to the technical and technological complexity of the resources used. Ongoing efforts to implement a systematic, protocolized approach involving "Aortic teams" made up of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and radiologists, among others are now leading to improved outcomes. The aim of this consensus document drawn up by the Aortic working groups of the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR) and the Spanish Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (SECTCV) is to disseminate a set of working protocols. The latest consensus document of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) define the concept of "AORTIC TEAM"(1). The aortic team should be closely involved from diagnosis to treatment and finally follow-up, and should be formed of cardiac and vascular surgeons working together with anaesthesiologists, cardiologists, radiologists and geneticists. Treatment of aortic pathologies should be centralised in large centres, because this is the only way to effectively understand the natural course of the disease, provide the entire range of treatment options under one umbrella and treat potential complications. A streamlined emergent care pathway (24/7 availability), adequate transportation and transfer capabilities, as well as rapid activation of the multidisciplinary team must be available. In light of the complexity and constant evolution of therapeutic options, we present this first version of the Anaesthesiology and surgical guidelines for surgery of the ascending aorta and aortic arch. Some questions will no doubt remain unanswered, and future versions will include new techniques that, though implemented in some centres, are still not widely recommended.

Mid-term outcomes of hybrid debranching endovascular aortic arch repair in landing zones 0-2

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to summarize a single-center experience of hybrid debranching endovascular repair of the aortic arch and proximal descending thoracic aorta (DTA) with regard to the mid-term outcomes with highlighting the difference between the landing zones 0-2.

METHODS

A retrospective review of data from a prospectively collected registry (Gangnam Severance Endovascular Aortic Registry) was performed. From among 332 patients whose aortic pathology was managed with TEVAR, 112 patients who underwent hybrid arch repair during the study period between 2012 and 2016 were identified. The patients were grouped into three cohorts according to the proximal landing zones (0, 1, and 2) of Ishimaru. The early outcome (30-days) in terms of mortality, morbidity, supra-aortic vessels patency, and presence of endoleak were analyzed. The survival, freedom from re-intervention, and major complications during follow-up were demonstrated.

RESULTS

During the study period. 112 patients (mean age 65±7, 79% males) were included. The patients were distributed in three cohorts: 8 (7%) patients with proximal landing zone 0, 20 (18%) with zone 1, and 80 (75%) with zone 2 hybrid aortic arch repair. Technical success was achieved in 7 (88%), 19 (90%), and 79 (94%) patients for zones 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was shorter in zone 2 (p = .005). The mean total hospital stay was shorter in zone 2 (p = .03). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 5% (4/112). There was no spinal cord ischemia or early surgical conversion. Renal function deterioration was seen more but not significantly in zone 0 patients (p = .08). Respiratory failure was seen significantly in zone 0 patients (p = .01). Stroke occurred in 6/44 (14%) patients with degenerative aneurysm versus 1/60 (2%) patients with aortic dissection (p =.06). Early CTA showed 100% patency of the supra-aortic vessels. The early endoleak rate was significant in zone 0 patients (p = .008). The mean follow-up period was (32±19 months). The survival rates and freedom from re-intervention were not statistically significant among the three zones. However, the survival rate and freedom from intervention tend to be higher in zone 2 versus zone 0 (p = .07 and .09), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid debranching endovascular aortic arch repair is feasible and relatively safe with acceptable mid-term outcomes. Zone 0 patients has worse early and late outcomes in comparison to other zones. Careful patient selection and improved endovascular technology may be the key to improve the outcomes.

Hybrid Approach in Acute and Chronic Aortic Disease

The management of patients with aortic disease that involves the ascending aorta, the aortic arch, and the descending aorta represent a surgical challenge. Open surgical repair remains the gold standard for aortic arch pathologies. However, this operation requires a cardiopulmonary bypass and a period of profound hypothermia and circulatory arrest, which carries a substantial rate of mortality and morbidity. For these reasons, hybrid arch repair that involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative for those patients deemed unfit for open surgical procedures. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness and can be performed as a single-stage procedure or as a two-stage procedure. The choice of the technique is multifactorial, depending on the characteristics of the diseased arch with regard to position of the stent graft proximal landing zone, patient fitness and comorbid status, as well as surgical expertise and hospital facilities. Among the evolving hybrid procedures is the so-called “frozen” or stented elephant trunk technique. Adapted from the classical elephant trunk technique, this approach facilitates the repair of a concomitant aortic arch and proximal descending aortic aneurysms in a single stage under circulatory arrest. This technique is increasingly being used to treat extensive thoracic aortic disease and has shown promising results.

Risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review & meta-analysis

Background &objectives:

Women with gestational diabetes are at an increased risk of being diagnosed as type 2 diabetes, but the postpartum screening rate is low. To provide evidence-based data for health providers and promote postpartum screening, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to access the risks of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) diagnosis after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in different demographic and maternal subgroups.

Methods:

MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched systematically. Unadjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane’s Q text and by calculating I² values. Subgroup analyses were conducted to address the disparities of type 2 diabetes conversion after gestational diabetes in different demographic and maternal subgroups.

Results:

1809 publications were screened and 39 cohort studies including 2,847,596 women were selected. In these studies, 78,893 women were diagnosed as T2DM at six weeks or later after delivery. The unadjusted RRs of women diagnosed T2DM at six weeks or later after delivery ranged from 1.32 (95% CI, 0.46-3.37) to 47.25 (95% CI, 2.95-758.01) with a pooled unadjusted RR of 8.92 (95% CI, 7.84-10.14). Older women, women with a family history of diabetes, Black and non-Hispanic White women and women living in Europe and South-East Asia had a higher risk of developing T2DM after GDM.

Interpretation & conclusionsxs:

It is suggested that healthcare providers may focus on older women with GDM and women with GDM and a family history of diabetes. Black and non-Hispanic White women with GDM may receive more attention, and healthcare providers, especially those in Europe and South-East Asia, may pay more attention to preventive measures for postpartum T2DM.

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.

Anaesthetic-surgical guide in the treatment of ascending aorta and surgery of the ascending aorta and aortic arch. Consensus document of the Spanish Society of Cardiovascular and Endovascular Surgery and the Sociedad of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy

Aortic pathology is always a challenge for the clinician, and must be diagnosed and treated by a multidisciplinary team due to the technical and technological complexity of the resources used. Ongoing efforts to implement a systematic, protocolized approach involving "Aortic teams" made up of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and radiologists, among others are now leading to improved outcomes. The aim of this consensus document drawn up by the Aortic working groups of the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR) and the Spanish Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (SECTCV) is to disseminate a set of working protocols. The latest consensus document of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) define the concept of "AORTIC TEAM"(1). The aortic team should be closely involved from diagnosis to treatment and finally follow-up, and should be formed of cardiac and vascular surgeons working together with anaesthesiologists, cardiologists, radiologists and geneticists. Treatment of aortic pathologies should be centralised in large centres, because this is the only way to effectively understand the natural course of the disease, provide the entire range of treatment options under one umbrella and treat potential complications. A streamlined emergent care pathway (24/7 availability), adequate transportation and transfer capabilities, as well as rapid activation of the multidisciplinary team must be available. In light of the complexity and constant evolution of therapeutic options, we present this first version of the Anaesthesiology and surgical guidelines for surgery of the ascending aorta and aortic arch. Some questions will no doubt remain unanswered, and future versions will include new techniques that, though implemented in some centres, are still not widely recommended.

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.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.

Anesthetic Considerations in Endovascular Repair of the Ascending Aorta

Since the first endovascular aortic repair in 1990, endovascular devices and the indications for their use have significantly grown. Considerable progress has been made in endovascular devices and techniques, such that endovascular repair is now considered first-line treatment for patients with descending aortic disease. However, for patients with ascending aortic disease, open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and hypothermic cardiac arrest was the only option until recently. Although the outcomes for open surgical repair of the ascending aorta have improved over the years, approximately 30% of patients with an emergent surgical indication, such as type A aortic dissection, are considered to be too high risk for open repair. For these patients, endovascular repair of the ascending aorta offers a life-saving procedure. The ascending aorta is regarded as the final frontier for endovascular therapy. Endovascular repair of it has posed a formidable challenge thus far, due to its unique anatomy, hemodynamic forces, and lack of an appropriate stent-graft designed specifically for the ascending aorta. Although currently there are no comprehensive data from randomized clinical trials, there are several case series and case reports that have shown favorable outcomes. Improvements in available devices soon will drive an exponential increase in the number of patients undergoing endovascular ascending aortic repair. In this review, the authors discuss multiple aspects of endovascular ascending aortic repair including the unique surgical and anesthetic considerations, the devices used, and the available outcomes data, and future directions are also explored.

A New Aortic Arch Inclusion Technique with Frozen Elephant Trunk for Aortic Arch Aneurysm Treatment

Various surgical techniques have been proposed for treating aortic arch aneurysm (AAA); however, the optimal treatment has not been well defined. This study introduces a new aortic arch inclusion technique with frozen elephant trunk (FET) for AAA treatment.A retrospective analysis was performed among 22 patients for AAA surgical treatment between March 2010 and March 2019. Patients were classified into Z1, Z2, and Z3 groups based on the origins of aneurysms. A stent graft with a 10 cm stented graft and 5-9 cm proximal vascular prosthesis was released into the descending thoracic aorta as FET through an incision in the aortic arch. The proximal vascular prosthesis was retracted into the aortic arch, trimmed to expose the orifices of the brachiocephalic vessels, and sutured inside the aortic arch using the inclusion technique. The proximal sealing location of the vascular graft was tailored to cover the origins of aneurysms.There was no 30-day mortality. No patient had postoperative stroke or paraplegia. Complete aneurysm thrombosis was achieved in all patients. One patient died of severe respiratory tract stenosis 3 months postoperatively. All other 21 patients were alive during 53.3 ± 36.5-month follow-up. Computed tomography angiography was obtained in 15 patients during follow-up. Endoleak was observed in one patient, and the other 14 patients were free from aneurysm-related or graft-related complications during follow-up.The aortic arch inclusion technique with FET provides an alternative technique in treating AAA with satisfactory mid-term follow-up results. A larger patient population with long-term follow-up results is warranted.

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.

Open aortic arch surgery: the gold standard method

Aortic arch pathologies are complex and treating them requires close team collaboration and technical skills to provide safe outcomes with low morbidity and mortality rates. Such challenges are facing both aortic and vascular surgeons. Open aortic arch repair has been the standard method of practice in all cases of aortic arch pathologies for the last four decades since the very first successful published case series by Griepp et al. during 1975. However, since then, repair of multi-segmented thoracic aortic pathologies has been explored through endovascular techniques; this is with or without open repair as a one-stage procedure especially in high-risk and elderly patients. Although the role of endovascular techniques in thoracoabdominal aorta is well established, its utilization as solo technique in aortic arch pathologies remains debatable. In this review, we highlight current evidences behind using open, endovascular, and hybrid procedures in aortic arch surgery.

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.

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.

A Feasibility Study of a New Unibody Branched Stent Graft Applied to Reconstruct the Canine Aortic Arch

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new unibody branched stent graft for the reconstruction of the canine aortic arch.

METHODS

The unibody branched stent grafts included single branched stent grafts and double branched stent grafts. The main stent graft and branched limbs were sutured together. The branched stent grafts were folded into the introducer system, which consisted of a double channel catheter, a detachable sleeve, and an introducer sheath. The branched stent grafts were introduced and deployed into the aortic arch by the delivery system. Twenty adult mongrel dogs were used for the experiments. Ten dogs were implanted with single branched stent grafts; the other 10 were implanted with double branched stent grafts. The surviving animals were followed up for 3 months. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) was performed to observe the status of the branched stent grafts.

RESULTS

All the unibody branched stent grafts were successfully implanted into the canine aortic arches. The technical success rate was 100%. There was no cerebral infarction, paraplegia or incision infection. CTA showed that all the branched stent grafts were patent; there was no endoleak or stent migration.

CONCLUSIONS

The unibody branched stent graft system could be used to reconstruct the aortic arch. The animal experimental procedures demonstrated the safety and feasibility of the unibody branched stent graft system.

Hybrid and total endovascular repair of the aortic arch

Background

Recent advances in endovascular technology have enabled minimally invasive repair of the aortic arch, with specifically designed stent-grafts. This article reviews hybrid and total endovascular repair in the management of aortic arch pathology.

Methods

Studies relating to aortic arch management were identified using MEDLINE and Embase, focusing on endovascular repair.

Results

Hybrid arch repair is associated with an early mortality rate of some 12 per cent, and carries significant risk of stroke (up to 15 per cent), paraplegia (up to 6 per cent), retrograde dissection (up to 6·5 per cent) and proximal endoleak (6 per cent). Despite patients being of overall higher perioperative risk, hybrid repair has morbidity and early mortality rates comparable to those of open arch replacement. However, rates of freedom from aortic rupture or reintervention are significantly lower in the longer term, owing to the incidence of endoleak. Total endovascular arch repair may be achieved by the use of parallel stents or in situ fenestration in the emergency setting, or use of custom-made devices (scalloped, fenestrated or branched stent-grafts) in the elective setting. Reports of these relatively novel technologies suggest acceptable short-term outcomes, but long-term data are still awaited.

Conclusion

Repair of aortic arch pathology presents a formidable challenge for endovascular technology. Open aortic arch repair remains the standard in younger, fitter patients, but endovascular technology and experience continue to evolve with encouraging early outcomes and expanding indications.