One-stage hybrid procedure for distal aortic arch disease: mid-term experience at a single center

A Scoping Review of Definitions of Success in Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair

INTRODUCTION

The present standard of care to treat aortic arch pathologies is open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic arrest. With approaches for total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid arch repair becoming more diverse, understanding what is considered a successful operation is prerequisite for a rigorous comparison of techniques. This review describes the specific outcomes reported, the rates of success, and the definitions of technical and clinical success in total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid aortic arch repair.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies with patients undergoing total endovascular or hybrid extra-anatomic cervical debranching repair of the aortic arch were included. Any publications including only patients with Ishimaru zone 2 or distal repairs were excluded from this review. Studies with less than 5 patients were excluded. Data extraction was performed by one author. Data items included were study design, procedure type, procedural details, underlying pathology, type of cervical debranching, type of endograft repair, surgical outcomes, definition of cerebrovascular events, technical success, and the definition of technical success.

RESULTS

Of 1754 studies screened for review, 85 studies with 5521 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: fenestrated devices, branched devices, parallel grafting. Most studies were retrospective single-institution studies. There were no randomized controlled trials. Short-term mortality and cerebrovascular events were nearly universally reported, present in 99% and 95% of studies reviewed, respectively. Only 27% of studies provided an explicit definition for cerebrovascular events. While 75% of studies reported a technical success rate, only 45% of those studies provided explicit criteria. Clinical success rates were infrequently reported, present in only 5.9% of studies reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The definitions of technical success that were provided fell short of analogous defined reporting standards in nearly all studies, inflating technical success rates. Definitions of cerebrovascular events and technical success require stringent criteria to uniformly compare various methods of endovascular aortic arch repair. A societal consensus document for reporting standards of endovascular aortic arch repair would allow for higher-quality outcomes research.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid operations are being increasingly utilized for complex aortic arch repair. These techniques, however, can be associated with serious complications. Currently, there is no accepted metric to define technical or report clinical outcomes. Due to the paucity of high-quality data, use of these approaches may be limited in clinical practice. This study emphasizes the need for the development of standards for reporting outcomes in endovascular aortic arch repair. Future studies can then utilize these benchmarks, whcih will allow for improved efficacy and safety in these techniques.

A meta-analysis on the effect of proximal landing zone location on stroke and mortality in thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the aortic arch may increase the opportunity for stroke owing to disruption of cerebral circulation and embolization. In this study, a systematic meta-analysis was performed to examine the impact of proximal landing zone location on stroke and 30-day mortality after TEVAR.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched for all original studies of TEVAR reporting outcomes of stroke or 30-day mortality for at least two adjacent proximal landing zones, based on the Ishimaru classification scheme. Forest plots were created using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). An I2 of <40% was regarded as minimal heterogeneity. A P value of <.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of the 57 studies examined, a total of 22,244 patients (male 73.1%, aged 71.9 ± 11.5 years) were included in the meta-analysis, with 1693 undergoing TEVAR with proximal landing zone 0, 1931 with zone 1, 5839 with zone 2, and 3089 with zone 3 and beyond. The overall risk of clinically evident stroke was 2.7% for zones ≥3, 6.6% for zone 2, 7.7% for zone 1, and 14.2% for zone 0. More proximal landing zones were associated with higher risks of stroke compared with distal (zone 2 vs ≥3: RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.43-3.20; P = .0002; I2 = 56%; zone 1 vs 2: RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.20-1.82; P = .0002; I2 = 0%; zone 0 vs 1: RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.52-2.24; P < .00001; I2 = 0%). Mortality at 30 days was 2.9% for zones ≥3, 2.4% for zone 2, 3.7% for zone 1, and 9.3% for zone 0. Zone 0 was associated with higher mortality compared with zone 1 (RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.75-3.03; P < .00001; I2 = 0%). No significant differences were found in 30-day mortality between zones 1 and 2 (P = .13) and between zone 2 and zones ≥3 (P = .87).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of stroke from TEVAR is lowest in zone 3 and beyond, increasing significantly as the landing zone is moved proximally. Furthermore, perioperative mortality is increased with zone 0 compared with zone 1. Therefore, risk of stent grafting in the proximal arch should be weighed against alternative surgical or nonoperative options. It is anticipated that the risk of stroke will improve with further development of stent graft technology and implantation technique.

Early and Long-Term Follow-Up for Chronic Type B and Type Non-A Non-B Aortic Dissection Using the Frozen Elephant Trunk Technique

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the early and long-term outcomes of a single center using a frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure for chronic type B or non-A non-B aortic dissection.

Methods: From February 2009 to December 2019, 79 patients diagnosed with chronic type B or non-A non-B aortic dissection who underwent the FET procedure were included in the present study. We analyzed operation mortality and early and long-term outcomes, including complications, survival and interventions.

Results: The operation mortality rate was 5.1% (4/79). Spinal cord injury occurred in 3.8% (3/79), stroke in 2.5% (2/79), and acute renal failure in 5.1% (4/79). The median follow-up time was 53 months. The overall survival rates were 96.2, 92.3, 88.0, 79.8, and 76.2% at 1/2, 1, 3, 5 and 7 years, respectively. Moreover, 79.3% of patients did not require distal aortic reintervention at 7 years. The overall survival in the subacute group was superior to that in the chronic group (P = 0.047).

Conclusion: The FET technique is a safe and feasible approach for treating chronic type B and non-A non-B aortic dissection in patients who have contraindications for primary endovascular aortic repair. The technique combines the advantages of both open surgical repair and endovascular intervention, providing comparable early and long-term follow-up outcomes and freedom from reintervention.

Comparison of Open Repair vs. the One-Stage Hybrid Extra-Anatomic Technique for Distal Aortic Arch Disease Treatment: Mid-term Outcomes With a Risk-Adjusted Analysis

Objective: This study aims to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the stented elephant trunk (SET) procedure combined with supra-arch branch reconstruction and one-stage hybrid arch repair combined thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with extra-anatomic bypass in the management of distal arch disease.

Methods: From January 2009 to January 2019, 97 patients underwent one-stage hybrid arch repair combined with TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass (HAR group), and 206 patients underwent the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction (SET group). We used inverse-probability-of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust baseline differences.

Results: Before IPTW adjustment, there was no significant difference in operative mortality between the two groups (5.2 vs. 1.0%, P = 0.064). The incidences of stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and endoleak also showed no significant differences (4.1 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.066; 2.1 vs. 1.5%, P = 1.000; 0 vs. 1.0%, P = 0.831; 6.2 vs. 1.9%, P = 0.113, respectively). After IPTW adjustment, the incidences of stroke, SCI, and AKI showed no significant differences between the two groups (1.8 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.138; 0.8 vs. 1.6%, P = 0.448; and 0 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.148, respectively). However, the HAR group tended to have higher operative mortality and incidence of endoleak than the SET group (12.4 vs. 1.3%, P = 0.01; 9.9 vs. 1.8%, P = 0.031, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, open repair decreased the risks of endoleak (odds ratio [OR], 0.171, 95% CI, 0.060–0.401; P < 0.001) and operative mortality (OR, 0.093, 95% CI, 0.027–0.238; P < 0.001). The overall survival and event-free survival of the HAR group were significantly lower than those of the SET group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: One-stage hybrid arch repair combined TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass and the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction both provided good postoperative treatment outcomes for distal arch disease. However, hybrid arch repair increased the risks of endoleak and operative mortality. The SET procedure provided better mid-term survival than hybrid arch repair without increasing operative mortality. Carefully selecting the indications for the procedure, while receiving close long-term follow-up, may improve the survival rate of patients undergoing hybrid arch repair.