Early outcome and mid-term survival after open arch repair using selective antegrade cerebral perfusion

Is surgical risk of aortic arch aneurysm repair underestimated? A novel perspective based on 30-day versus 1-year mortality

OBJECTIVES

The decision to undergo aortic aneurysm repair balances the risk of operation with the risk of aortic complications. The surgical risk is typically represented by perioperative mortality, while the aneurysmal risk relates to the 1-year risk of aortic events. We investigate the difference in 30-day and 1-year mortality after total arch replacement for aortic aneurysm.

METHODS

This was an international two-centre study of 456 patients who underwent total aortic arch replacement for aneurysm between 2006 and 2020. Our primary end-point of interest was 1-year mortality. Our secondary analysis determined which variables were associated with 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 65.4 years (interquartile range 55.1-71.1) and 118 (25.9%) were female. Concomitantly, 91 (20.0%) patients had either an aortic root replacement or aortic valve procedure. There was a drop in 1-year (81%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 78-85%) survival probability compared to 30-day (92%, 95% CI 90-95%) survival probability. Risk hazards regression showed the greatest risk of mortality in the first 4 months after discharge. Stroke [hazard ratio (HR) 2.54, 95% CI (1.16-5.58)], renal failure [HR 3.59 (1.78-7.25)], respiratory failure [HR 3.65 (1.79-7.42)] and reoperation for bleeding [HR 2.97 (1.36-6.46)] were associated with 1-year mortality in patients who survived 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increase in mortality up to 1 year after aortic arch replacement. This increase is prominent in the first 4 months and is associated with postoperative complications, implying the influence of surgical insult. Mortality beyond the short term may be considered in assessing surgical risk in patients who are undergoing total arch replacement.

Frozen elephant trunk technique using hybrid grafts: 15-year outcomes from a single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique based on 2 different hybrid grafts implanted from January 2007 to July 2022.

METHODS

The study includes patients who underwent an elective or emergency FET procedure. Short-term, long-term mortality and freedom from thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) were the primary end points. Analyses were carried out separately for the periods 2007-2012 and 2013-2022.

RESULTS

Of the 367 enrolled, 49.3% received E-Vita Open implantation and 50.7% received Thoraflex Hybrid implants. Overall mean age was 61 years [standard deviation (SD) = 11] and 80.7% were male. The average annual volume of FET procedures was 22.7 cases/year. Compared to E-Vita Open, patients implanted with Thoraflex Hybrid grafts were more likely to receive distal anastomosis in zone 2 (68.3% vs 11.6%, P < 0.001) with a shorter stent portion, mean = 103mm (SD = 11.3) vs mean = 149 mm (SD = 12.7; P < 0.001) and they underwent a reduced visceral ischaemia time, mean = 42.5 (SD = 14.2) vs mean= 61.0 (SD = 20.2) min, P < 0.001. In the period 2013-2022, overall survival at 1, 2 and 5 years was 74.8%, 72.5% and 63.2% for Thoraflex and 73.2%, 70.7% and 64.1% for E-Vita, without significant differences between groups (log-rank test = 0.01, P = 0.907). Overall freedom from TEVAR at 1, 2 and 5 years was 66.7%, 57.6% and 39.3% for Thoraflex and 79%, 69.7% and 66% for E-Vita, with significant differences between groups (log-rank test = 5.28, P = 0.029). In a competing risk analysis adjusted for chronic/residual aortic syndromes and stent diameter, the Thoraflex group was more likely to receive TEVAR during follow-up (subdistribution hazard ratio SHR = 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.06-4.22).

CONCLUSIONS

The FET technique addresses acute and chronic arch disease with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Downstream endovascular reinterventions are very common during follow-up.

Development of aortic arch surgery in Bologna and reflections on current strategy of cerebral protection

Complications after open arch repair much decreased over time thanks to better methods of organ and cerebral protection. The crossroads was the introduction of antegrade cerebral perfusion as a method of cerebral protection. Other intraoperative techniques also contributed to facilitate arch reconstruction, such as performing circulatory arrest at higher core temperature, using hybrid grafts or endografts, and monitoring cerebral functions during the procedure. As part of this exciting process, we go back in Bologna in the early 1970s to relive some of these fundamental steps on aortic arch surgery. Today a large number of issues on cerebral protection remain for which we have incomplete responses. Probably, a super specialized approach and endovascular techniques will continue to improve the quality of care of patients with different arch pathologies.