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.

Safety and Efficacy of Inner Branched Stent-Graft in the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a descriptive overview on the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular arch repair with inner branched endoprosthesis (bTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Pre-defined search terms were used to interrogate PubMed and OVID Medline databases from January 1999 to July 2022. Patient characteristics, indication for treatment, procedural data, mortality rates, postoperative complications, and reintervention rate during follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles were included, encompassing a total of 618 patients who received bTEVAR, most of which were double-branched (63.9%, n=395). The main indication for treatment was aneurysm secondary to chronic aortic dissection (38.8%, n=240/618) with a mean maximum diameter of 58.3±11.4 mm. Pooled mean technical success rate was 97.4±4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=95.1%-99.5%); 2 and 3 patients required conversion to chimney technique and open repair, respectively. Among the pooled rates of early complications, postoperative stroke was the highest (10.5%; 95% CI=6.8%-14.3%). Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 5.5% (95% CI=2.6%-9.7%). Forty patients (6.5%; 95% CI=2.5%-9.5%) required early reintervention. During a mean follow-up of 20.7±13.5 months, the mortality rate was 18.2% (n=108/593; 95% CI=8.6%-20.6%) where 12 (11.1%) were aortic-related. Pooled late reintervention rate was 9.6% (95% CI=4.8%-14.3%). Comparison of demographics and outcomes found no significant difference between single and double bTEVAR.

CONCLUSION

Branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising approach for aortic arch pathologies with a high technical success rate despite a steep learning curve. However, contemporary outcomes reflect that postoperative stroke remains the predominant concern. Further experience and long-term follow-up are required to sufficiently elucidate the safety and durability of bTEVAR in the management of aortic pathologies for high-risk patients.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This systematic review summarized the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with different inner branched stent-grafts for the management of aortic arch pathologies. Pooled results from nineteen studies with 618 patients demonstrated a high technical success rate and an acceptable mortality rate. However, postoperative stroke remains the major concern. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate its durability.

Endovascular Options for the Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch - A Scoping Review

The gold standard for aneurysmal repair of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch has been open surgery with an established track record of good results in suitable patients. In recent years, with innovations in the endovascular field alternative endovascular solutions for pathologies of the aortic arch and ascending aorta became available. At first reserved only for highly selected patients unfit for open surgery, endovascular aortic arch repair is now being offered to patients with suitable anatomy in high volume referral centers after discussion in an interdisciplinary team. The present scoping review aims at providing an overview on indications, available devices, technical aspects and feasibility studies of endovascular arch repair both in elective and emergent situations, including also experiences and considerations from our center.

Real-world comparative claims analysis of a novel single-branched aortic stent graft device versus thoracic endograft placement with extra-anatomic debranching/revascularization in zone 2 aortic disease

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving landing zone 2 can require extra-anatomic debranching (SR-TEVAR) to ensure left subclavian artery perfusion, resulting in increased costs. A single-branch device (Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis [TBE], WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ) provides a total endovascular solution. Comparative cost analysis of patients undergoing zone 2 TEVAR requiring left subclavian artery preservation with TBE versus SR-TEVAR is presented.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cost analysis was performed for aortic diseases requiring a zone 2 landing zone (TBE vs. SR-TEVAR) from 2014 to 2019. Facility charges were collected from the universal billing form UB-04 (form CMS 1450).

Results

Twenty-four patients were included in each arm. There were no significant differences in the overall mean procedural charges between the two groups: TBE, $209,736 ($57,761) vs. SR-TEVAR $209,025 ($93,943), P = 0.94. TBE resulted in reduced operating room charges ($36,849 [$8750] vs. $48,073 [$10,825], P = 0.02) and reduced intensive care unit and telemetry room charges, which did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.23 and 0.12, respectively). Device/implant charges were the primary cost driver in both groups. Charges associated with TBE were significantly higher: $105,525 ($36,137) vs. $51,605 ($31,326), P > 0.01.

Conclusions

TBE had similar overall procedural charges despite higher device/implant-related expenses and reduced facility resource utilization (lower operating room, intensive care unit, telemetry, and pharmacy charges).

Single branched endografts for the preservation of left subclavian artery in the treatment of zone II thoracic aortic lesions a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We investigated the safety and feasibility of single branched endografts in the treatment of zone II thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic research on Medline, Scopus and EMBASE for articles published up to February 2023. Primary endpoints included technical success, thirty-day mortality, stroke and spinal cord injury (SCI) as well as unassisted left subclavian artery (LSA) branch patency by the end of follow-up. Secondary endpoints included early thirty-day and persistent endoleaks, new onset dissection and reintervention by the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies, three prospective case series and eleven retrospective case series comprised of 727 patients were finally included. The pooled technical success and thirty-day mortality rates were 94.86 % (95% CI: 90.95-97.86) and 0.14% (95% CI: 0.00-0.87). The thirty-day stroke and SCI rates were 0.45% (95% CI: 0.00-1.39) and 0.08% (95% CI: 0.00-0.99) respectively, while the unassisted LSA branch patency estimate was 99.12% (95% CI: 97.97-99.86). The early thirty-day and persistent endoleak rates were 5.19% (95% CI: 2.45-8.65) and 2.57% (95% CI: 0.36-6.02), whereas new onset dissections and reinterventions estimates were 0.94% (95% CI: 0.17-2.11) and 2.40% (95% CI: 0.41-5.42).

CONCLUSION

While we have displayed the safety and feasibility of single branched endografts in the treatment of zone II thoracic aortic lesions, physicians should be aware of the persistency displayed by early type I endoleaks eventually requiring re-intervention. The variations in device and lesion characteristics accompanied by the short-term follow-up presented in our review do not allow for definite conclusions to be drawn, necessitating further research through high-quality randomized controlled trials.

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

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

Mid-term Comparison of One-Piece Branched Stent-Graft and Chimney Technique Treating Aortic Arch Pathologies

PURPOSE

We compared the mid-term outcomes of a one-piece branched stent-graft with the chimney technique in the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.

METHODS

Between August 2012 and December 2017, a retrospective analysis of 279 patients with thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) or aneurysm (TAA) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with b-TEVAR (n = 69, 58 TAD and 11 TAA) or c-TEVAR (n = 210, 151 TAD and 59 TAA) was performed.

RESULTS

Forty-five double-chimney for the left subclavian artery (LSA) and left common carotid artery LCCA and 165 single-chimney for the LSA were performed in chimney-TEVAR (c-TEVAR) and 69 branched-TEVAR (b-TEVAR) with 36 single-branched stent-grafts and 33 branched stent-grafts combined with fenestration technique. The c-TEVAR group experienced more in-hospital complications than the b-TEVAR group (19.5 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.017), primarily because the c-TEVAR group experienced more in-hospital cerebral ischemia events (6.2 vs. 0%, p = 0.043) and intra-operative type I endoleaks (31.9 vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01). There were significantly more follow-up type I endoleaks (21.9 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.002), cerebral ischemia events (11.0 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.042), and re-interventions (12.9 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.048) in the c-TEVAR group than in the b-TEVAR group. However, follow-up mortality was not significantly different between the c-TEVAR and b-TEVAR groups (5.2 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.638).

CONCLUSION

In patients with aortic pathologies involving the arch branches, customized b-TEVAR may result in fewer cerebral ischemia events and endoleaks than c-TEVAR. However, c-TEVAR should be considered an off-the-shelf treatment option for patients in need of emergency treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, Case Series.

Total arch replacement in octogenarians

 

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the effect of a preoperative age ≥80 years on postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent isolated elective total arch replacement using mild hypothermic lower body circulatory arrest with bilateral antegrade selective cerebral perfusion.

METHODS

A total of 140 patients who had undergone isolated elective total arch replacement between January 2007 and December 2020 were enrolled in the present study. We compared postoperative outcomes between 30 octogenarian patients (≥80 years old; Octogenarian group) and 110 non-octogenarian patients (≤79 years old; Non-Octogenarian group).

RESULTS

Overall 30-day mortality and hospital mortality were 0% in both groups, and there was no significant difference in overall survival between the 2 groups (log-rank test, P = 0.108). Univariable Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that age as continuous variable was only the predictor of mid-term all-cause death (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 1.01–1.16; P = 0.037), but not in the Octogenarians subgroup (P = 0.119).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative age ≥80 years is not associated with worse outcomes postoperatively after isolated elective total arch replacement with mild hypothermic lower body circulatory arrest and bilateral antegrade selective cerebral perfusion.

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.

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.

Anatomic Suitability for Branched Thoracic Endovascular Repair in Patients with Aortic Arch Pathological Features

Background Endovascular repair has become a viable alternative for aortic pathological features, including those located within the aortic arch. We investigated the anatomic suitability for branched thoracic endovascular repair in patients previously treated with conventional open surgery for aortic arch pathological features. Methods and Results Patients who underwent open surgery for aortic arch pathological features at our institution between 2000 and 2018 were included. Anatomic suitability was determined by strict compliance with the anatomic criteria within manufacturers' instructions for use for each of the following branched thoracic stent grafts: Relay Plus Double-Branched (Terumo-Aortic), TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates), Zenith Arch Branched Device (Cook-Medical), and Nexus Stent Graft System (Endospan Ltd/Jotec GmbH). Computed tomography angiography images were analyzed with outer luminal line measurements. A total of 377 patients (mean age, 64±14 years; 64% men) were identified, 153 of whom had suitable computed tomography angiography images for measurements. In total, 59 patients (15.6% of the total cohort and 38.6% of the measured cohort) were eligible for endovascular repair using at least one of the devices. Device suitability was 30.9% for thoracic aneurysms, 4.6% for type A dissections, 62.5% for type B dissections, and 28.6% for other pathological features. Conclusions The anatomic suitability for endovascular repair of all aortic arch pathological features was modest. The highest suitability rates were observed for thoracic aneurysms and for type B dissections, of which repair included part of the aortic arch. We suggest endovascular repair of arch pathological features should be reserved for high-volume centers with experience in endovascular arch repair.

Survival and cause of death after aortic arch aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify differences in prognosis, causes of death, and outcomes between open and endovascular repair for aortic arch aneurysms.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the survival status and causes of death determined from the medical records of 124 consecutive elderly patients (age>70 years) with aortic arch aneurysms that were treated between 2010 and 2018 at our hospital. Forty patients (male, N.=30; mean age, 76 years) underwent open repair and 84 (male, N.=68; mean age, 78 years) underwent endovascular repair.

RESULTS

Early postoperative complications (10.0% vs. 6.3%; P=0.4) and rates of in-hospital death (2.5% vs. 6.3%; P=0.2) did not significantly differ between open and endovascular repair. Cumulative long-term and event free survival rates at eight years were similar in both groups (78.7% vs. 66.3%, P=0.1 and 66.6% vs. 58.4%; P=0.4, respectively). The causes of death at follow-up after endovascular repair comprised malignancies in 11 (52.4%) patients and cardiopulmonary and cerebral events unrelated to aortic aneurysms in 10 (47.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Early and late outcomes did not statistically differ after both procedures. However, the prevalence of cancer-related death occurring late after arch repair was significantly higher after endovascular repair. The most important observation from this series was that significantly more patients died of malignant disease during follow-up after endovascular repair than open repair.

A surgical technique for ascending aorta, aortic arch and descending aorta replacement without cross-clamp, circulatory arrest or hypothermia

Treatment of the aneurysms comprising the aortic arch is challenging. Surgical reconstruction usually requires aortic cross-clamping, cardiac arrest, and even deep hypothermia for a bloodless field. In this report, we present our surgical technique providing normothermic ascending aorta, aortic arch, and proximal descending aorta replacement with selective cannulation and perfusion of the whole body.