Is debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair acceptable as the first choice for arch aneurysm in the elderly?

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Aneurysms and dissections - What is new in the literature of 2019/2020 - a European Society of Vascular Medicine annual review

More than 6,000 publications were found in PubMed concerning aneurysms and dissections, including those Epub ahead of print in 2019, printed in 2020. Among those publications 327 were selected and considered of particular interest.

Debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for distal aortic arch aneurysm in elderly patients aged over 75 years old

Background

We examined the outcome of debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair (d-TEVAR) without sternotomy for distal aortic arch aneurysm in patients aged ≥75 years.

Methods

Patients who underwent d-TEVAR or TAR for aortic arch aneurysm between 2008 and 2015 at our hospital and aged ≥75 years were included. Age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, preoperative creatinine level, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were matched using PS.

Results

Among 74 patients (d-TEVAR: 51, TAR: 23), 17 patients in each group were matched. No difference in surgical outcome was detected between the d-TEVAR and TAR groups, including 30-day death (0% vs. 0%), hospital death (5.8% vs. 0%: p = 0.31) and incidence of cerebral infarction (5.8% vs. 7.6%: p = 0.27) as well as the long-term outcomes of 5-year survival (92.8% vs. 74.8%: p = 0.30) and 5-year aorta-related event-free rate (88.2% vs. 100%: p = 0.15). Average duration of ICU stay (1.3 ± 1.1 days vs. 5.6 ± 1.3 days: p = 0.025) and hospital stay (16.5 ± 5.2 days vs. 37.7 ± 19.6 days: p = 0.017) were significantly shorter in the d-TEVAR group.

Conclusion

Our results indicated that d-TEVAR is less invasive without affecting long-term outcome up to 5 years. Although the number of the patients included in the study was small, debranching TEVAR could be one of the treatments of the choice in the elderly, especially with comorbidities.