Outcomes of different aortic arch replacement techniques

Total aortic arch debranching with antegrade Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) in acute non-A non-B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

The surgical evaluation and management of non-A non-B aortic dissections, in the absence of ascending aortic involvement, remains a grey area. It is in these scenarios when thorough evaluation of patient/family history, clinical presentation, but also overall lifestyle, is of immense importance when determining an optimal intervention.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a 38-year-old patient with a physically demanding lifestyle as a professional wrestler, uncontrolled hypertension due to history of medical non-adherence, and family history of aortic dissection who presented with acute non-A non-B aortic dissection. He was spared a total arch replacement by undergoing a hybrid approach of complete aortic debranching with antegrade Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR). The patient was able to benefit from reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, avoidance of aortic cross clamp, circulatory arrest, and hypothermic circulation.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient's unique composition of a physically demanding lifestyle, personal history of medical non-adherence, family history of aortic dissection, and clinical presentation required a holistic approach to understanding an ideal intervention that would be best suited long-term. Due to this contextualization, the patient was able to be spared a total arch replacement, or suboptimal medical management, by instead undergoing a hybrid-approach with total aortic arch debranching with antegrade TEVAR.

Branch-first aortic arch replacement strategy decreases perioperative mortality

OBJECTIVE

Sparce evidence suggests superiority of total arch replacement with the branch-first technique and antegrade cerebral perfusion over conventional techniques with respect to morbidity and mortality. Thus, we aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing traditional total arch replacement versus branch-first total arch replacement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 144 patients undergoing total arch replacement from January 2017 to December 2021. Patients were dichotomized based on technique, either traditional total arch replacement or branch-first total arch replacement. Primary end points were 30-day mortality and adverse events. Branch-first total arch replacement and traditional total arch replacement cohorts were compared using Student t tests and chi-square tests. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors associated with 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients (47.2%) underwent traditional total arch replacement, and 76 patients (52.8%) underwent branch-first total arch replacement. The branch-first total arch replacement cohort had higher rates of chronic kidney disease, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and previous myocardial infarction (P = .04, .002, .035, and .031 respectively). The majority of total arch replacements (78, 55%) were performed for aneurysmal disease. Median antegrade cerebral perfusion times were significantly shorter in the branch-first total arch replacement cohort (P = .001). There were no significant differences in rates of stroke, reintubation, postoperative lumbar drainage, renal failure, reoperation for bleeding, or prolonged ventilation between total arch replacement cohorts. The branch-first total arch replacement group had significantly lower 30-day mortality compared with the traditional total arch replacement group (4% vs 19%, P = .004). After adjustment for chronic kidney disease, nonelective status, antegrade cerebral perfusion time, rates of dissections arriving in extremis or with malperfusion, and primary surgeon, undergoing a branch-first total arch replacement was associated with a 93% reduced odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.07, 95% CI, 0.009-0.48, P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide evidence that branch-first total arch replacement significantly reduces 30-day mortality compared with traditional total arch replacement.

Short- and long-term results of total arch replacement: Comparison between island and debranching techniques

OBJECTIVE

The 2 most acceptable techniques for reimplantation of the supra-aortic vessels in total arch replacement include the branched graft technique (debranching) or en bloc technique (island). We aim to review our experience with total arch replacement and report short- and long-term outcomes from a high-volume center dedicated to surgery for the thoracic aorta.

METHODS

The aortic surgery database was queried to identify all consecutive patients undergoing total arch replacement between 1997 and 2022. Of the 426 patients who underwent total arch replacement, 303 (71%) received the island technique and 123 (29%) received the debranching approach. Operative and long-term outcomes were compared using multivariable models.

RESULTS

The debranching group was younger (64 ± 14 years vs 69 ± 12 years, P = .001), had undergone more previous cardiac operations (54.5% vs 27.4%, P < .001), and had more connective tissue disorder (20.3% vs 4.6%, P < .001). The debranching approach was associated with longer total circulatory arrest time (47 ± 15 minutes vs 37 ± 10 minutes, P < .001) and cardiac ischemic time (116 ± 41 minutes vs 100 ± 37 minutes, P < .001). More patients in the debranching group received blood products intraoperatively or postoperatively (56.1% vs 42.9%, P = .018). All other early outcomes did not differ between groups. Overall operative mortality was 1.4% (2.4% vs 1%, P = .486); the incidence of major postoperative complications was 6.3% (5.7% vs 6.6%, P = .897). Ten-year survival was 80% (78% vs 80.9%, log-rank P = .356). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that neither surgical approach was associated with survival advantage (hazard ratio, 1.18; 0.73-1.89; P = .495).

CONCLUSIONS

Debranching requires a longer operative time, with similar early and long-term outcomes. Preoperative comorbidity, not surgical technique, predicts major adverse events and long-term survival.

En Bloc Arch Reconstruction With the Frozen Elephant Trunk Technique for Acute Type a Aortic Dissection

Objective: The study objective was to evaluate the effect of en bloc arch reconstruction with frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique for acute type A aortic dissection.

Methods: 41 patients with acute Stanford type A dissection underwent en bloc arch reconstruction combined with FET implantation between April 2018 and August 2020. The mean age of the patients was 46 ± 13 years, and 9 patients were female. One patient had Marfan syndrome. Six patients had pericardial tamponade, 9 had pleural effusion, 5 had transient cerebral ischemic attack, and 3 had chronic kidney disease.

Results: The hospital mortality rate was 9.8% (4 patients). 2 (4.9%) patients had stroke, 23 (56.1%) had acute kidney injury, and 5 (12.2%) had renal failure requiring hemodialysis. During follow-up, the rate of complete false lumen thrombosis was 91.6% (33/36) around the FET, 69.4% (25/36) at the diaphragmatic level, and 27.8% (10/36) at the superior mesenteric artery level. The true lumen diameter at the same three levels of the descending aorta increased significantly while the false lumen diameter reduced at the two levels: pulmonary bifurcation and the diaphragm. The 1-, 2-and 3-year actuarial survival rates were 90.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.2–99.2], 84.2% (95% CI, 70.1–98.3) and 70.2% (95% CI, 42.2–98), respectively.

Conclusions: In patients with acute type A dissection, en bloc arch reconstruction with FET technique appeared to be feasible and effective with early clinical follow-up results. Future studies including a large sample size and long-term follow-up are required to evaluate the efficacy.

Outcomes of different aortic arch replacement techniques

Background

Consensus on the best treatment for aortic arch pathology is unresolved due to an emerging variety of procedures. We aimed to compare the outcomes of two major techniques for open aortic arch replacement involving the supra‐aortic branches and to identify the risk factors for specific adverse events.

Methods

Between 1974 and 2017, 172 patients were treated with either the en bloc (island, n = 59; 34.3%) or branched graft technique (n = 113, 65.7%). Most of the patients were treated in an emergent/urgent setting (52.4%).

Results

Patients who underwent the en bloc procedure had significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (median: 241 vs 271 minutes, P = .041) and aortic cross clamp times (median: 124 vs 168 minutes, P = .005) than patients who underwent the separate graft technique. Overall, the hospital mortality was lower in the en bloc group, 8.5% vs 19.5%, although the difference was not significant (P = .077). No difference was found in the survival between the separate graft and en bloc groups at 1 (77.0 vs 86.3%), 5 (67.7 vs 66.3%) and 10 years (42.4 vs 51.3%), (P = .63). The postoperative stroke rate was comparable between the en bloc and separate graft cohorts (14.3 vs 19.6%, P = .52). Diabetics and those who underwent an elephant trunk procedure were at a higher risk for reintervention.

Conclusions

The separate graft technique, which is more common today, showed no difference from the en bloc technique with regard to hospital mortality and morbidity. Furthermore, the late survival and reintervention rates were similar after both procedures.