Type I and Type II hybrid aortic arch replacement: postoperative and mid-term outcome analysis

Clinical outcomes of the type II hybrid procedure for the repair of extensive aortic arch pathology

Background

Type II hybrid arch repair (HAR) has been used for the repair of extensive aortic arch pathology. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze single-stage hybrid treatment involving replacement of the ascending aorta, arch debranching, and zone 0 stent graft deployment.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 41 patients with acute and chronic aortic disease who underwent a type II hybrid arch procedure at Beijing Anzhen Hospital and Beijing Chaoyang Hospital from January 2020 to August 2022. The femoral arteries and right axillary arteries were used as cannulation sites to decrease the risk of malperfusion. During surgery, the nasopharyngeal temperature was lowered to 30 ℃. Demographic, perioperative, and late results data were retrieved and analyzed.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 54.9±11.1 years, and 31 patients (75.6%) were men. In all cases, zone 0 stent graft deployment was successful, with no in-hospital mortality. The median follow-up time was 10.5 [interquartile range (IQR), 4.8-17.6] months, and the survival rate was 94.9% during follow-up. Complications included cerebral infarction (3 patients, 7.3%) and renal failure requiring dialysis (3 patients, 7.3%). There were no occurrences of paraplegia, and no stent-related complications occurred during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

The single-stage hybrid arch procedure achieved satisfactory early results and represents a less invasive approach for treating complex diffuse aortic disease that affects the arch. This strategy is an important technical advance in the treatment of high-risk patients with extensive aortic arch pathology.

Surgical Treatment for Type A Aortic Dissection after Endovascular Aortic Repair: A 12-year, Single-Center Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the clinical manifestations, operative techniques, and outcomes of patients who undergo open repair after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

From January 2010 to June 2022, 113 consecutive type A aortic dissection (TAAD) patients underwent secondary open operation after TEVAR at our institution, and the median interval from primary intervention to open surgery was 12 (1.9-48.0) months. We divided the patients into two groups (RTAD (retrograde type A dissection) group, N = 56; PNAD (proximal new aortic dissection) group, N = 57) according to their anatomical features. Survival analysis during the follow-up was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve and a log-rank test.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality was 6.2% (7/113), the median follow-up period was 31.7 (IQR 14.7-65.6) months, and the overall survival at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years was 88.5%, 88.5%, and 87.6%, respectively. Fourteen deaths occurred during the follow-up, but there were no late aorta-related deaths. Three patients underwent total thoracoabdominal aortic replacement 1 year after a second open operation. The RTAD group had a smaller ascending aorta size (42.5 ± 7.7 mm vs 48.4 ± 11.4 mm; P < .01) and a closer proximal landing zone (P < .01) compared to the PNAD group. However, there were no differences in survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TAAD can present as an early or a late complication after TEVAR due to stent-grafting-related issues or disease progression. Open operation can be performed to treat TAAD, and this has acceptable early and mid-term outcomes. Follow-up should become mandatory for patients after TEVAR because these patients are at increased risk for TAAD.

Aortic remodeling following hybrid arch repair with zone 0 to 5 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs for complex arch and descending thoracic aortic pathologies

Objective

For high-risk patients with aortic arch pathology, hybrid aortic arch repair with simultaneous or staged thoracic endovascular repair of the descending aorta may be a viable alternative to open repair. However, data on postintervention aortic remodeling remain limited. We report the short-term outcomes of remodeling of the thoracoabdominal aorta after hybrid arch repair + thoracic endovascular repair.

Methods

All patients undergoing hybrid arch repair with planned zones 0 to 5 thoracic endovascular repair from January 2020 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Computed tomography angiography scans preoperatively, after hybrid aortic arch repair, and on long-term follow-up were analyzed for thoracoabdominal aorta remodeling. Mean change in aortic true luminal diameter and full luminal diameter was calculated at every level, and paired-samples t test was used to compare means.

Results

Of 39 patients, 38 had follow-up data at a mean duration of 14.9 months. There were a total of 3 (7.7%) deaths, 0 (0.0%) strokes, and 0 (0.0%) paralysis. For the 35 patients undergoing thoracic endovascular repair for aortic dissection, at follow-up, there was a significant increase in the mean true luminal diameter at each level (P < .05), except at the aortic bifurcation and common iliac arteries. The largest increase in mean true luminal diameter (P < .01) was observed at the level of the left inferior pulmonary vein (mean difference +13.22 mm, 95% CI, 10.38-16.07), tracheal carina (mean difference +13.06 mm, 95% CI, 10.05-16.07), and inferior left atrium (mean difference +11.19 mm, 95% CI, 7.84-14.53).

Conclusions

Hybrid arch repair with zones 0 to 5 leads to improved true lumen augmentation in zones 0 to 8 with complete false lumen thrombosis down to zone 5 at short-term follow-up. Zones 9 to 11, if involved, may require adjunctive treatment strategies for total aortic remodeling and complete false lumen obliteration.

Comprehensive review of hybrid aortic arch repair with focus on zone 0 TEVAR and our institutional experience

Even with increasing operator experience and a better understanding of the disease and the operation, intervention for aortic arch pathologies continues to struggle with relatively higher mortality, reintervention, and neurologic complications. The hybrid aortic arch repair was introduced to simplify the procedure and improve the outcome. With recent industry-driven advances, hybrid repairs are not only offered to poor surgical candidates but have become mainstream. This review discusses the evolution of hybrid repair, terminology pertinent to this technique, and results. In addition, we aim to provide a pervasive review of hybrid aortic arch repairs with reference to relevant literature for a detailed understanding. We have also discussed our institutional experience with hybrid repairs.

Early and Midterm Outcomes of Type II Hybrid Arch Repair for Complex Aortic Arch Pathology

Background

The hybrid arch repair (HAR) is an appealing surgical option in the management of aortic arch diseases. The aim is to evaluate the short and mid-term outcomes of type II HAR involving replacement of the ascending aorta, arch debranching, and zone 0 stent graft deployment in diverse arch pathologies.

Methods

200 patients with various diffuse aortic pathologies involving the arch were enrolled between 2016 and 2019. Complex arch diseases included acute type A dissection (n = 129, 64.5%), acute type B dissection (n = 16, 8.0%), aortic arch aneurysm (n = 42, 21.0%) and penetrating arch ulcer (n = 13, 6.5%). Mortality, morbidity, survival and re-intervention were analyzed.

Results

The overall 30-day mortality rate was 8.0% (16/200). Stroke was present in 3.5% (7/200) of the general cohort and spinal cord injury was occurred in 3.0% (6/200). Multivariable logistic analysis showed that cardiac malperfusion and CPB time were the risk factors associated with 30-day mortality. The mean follow-up duration was 25.9 months (range 1–57.2 months), and the 3-year survival rate was 83.1%. On Cox regression analysis, age, diabetes, cardiac malperfusion and CPB time predicted short and mid-term overall mortality. A total of 3 patients required reintervention during the follow-up due to the thrombosis of epiaortic artificial vessels (n = 1), anastomotic leak at the site of the proximal ascending aorta (n = 1) and the type I endoleak (n = 1).

Conclusions

Type II HAR was performed with satisfactory early and mid-term outcomes in complex aortic arch pathologies.

National Outcomes of Elective Hybrid Arch Debranching with Endograft Exclusion versus Total Arch Replacement Procedures: Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database

OBJECTIVE

 Hybrid arch procedures (arch vessel debranching with thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair [TEVAR] coverage of arch pathology) have been presented as an alternative to total arch replacement (TAR). But multicenter-based analyses of these two procedures are needed to benchmark the field and establish areas of improvement.

METHODS

 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database from July 2014 to December 2015 was queried for elective TAR and hybrid arch procedures. Demographics and operative characteristics were compared and stepwise variable selection was used to create a risk-set used for adjustment of all multivariable models.

RESULTS

 A total of 1,011 patients met inclusion criteria, 884 underwent TAR, and 127 had hybrid arch procedures. TAR patients were younger (mean age: 62.7 ± 13.3 vs. 66.7 ± 11.9 years; p = 0.001) and had less peripheral vascular disease (34.0 vs. 49.6%; p < 0.001) and preoperative dialysis (1.7 vs. 4.7%; p = 0.026), but similar history of stroke (p = 0.91)/cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.52). TAR patients had more concomitant procedures (60 vs. 34.6%; p < 0.0001). TAR patients had lower mortality (6.7 vs. 12.6%; p = 0.02), stroke (6.9 vs. 15%; p = 0.002), paralysis (1.8 vs. 7.1%; p = 0.002), renal failure (4.6 vs. 8.7%; p = 0.045), and STS morbidity (34.2 vs. 42.5%; p = 0.067). Composite mortality, stroke, and paralysis were significantly lower with TAR (11.5 vs. 25.2%; p = 0.0001). After risk adjustment, analysis showed hybrid arch procedures imparted an increased odds of mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.91, p = 0.046), stroke (OR = 2.3, p = 0.005), and composite endpoint of stroke or mortality (OR = 2.31, p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSION

 TAR remains the gold standard for elective aortic arch pathologies. Despite risk adjustment, hybrid arch procedures were associated with increased risk of mortality and stroke, advocating for careful adoption of these strategies.

Hybrid management of aneurysmal vascular ring and a Kommerell's diverticulum in an adult: Case report

Introduction and importance

Congenital vascular rings are rare in adults. The management is challenging when vascular rings present with concomitant aortic aneurysm and Kommerall's diverticulum.

Case presentation

We present a 68year old patient with a congenital vascular ring in the form of right sided aortic arch, with a retroesophageal left subclavian artery arising from an aneurysmal Kommerell's diverticulum. In addition, the patient had aneurysmal distal aortic arch and proximal descending aorta, causing severe symptomatic tracheal compression. The patient was successfully managed by debranching and reimplantation of head neck vessels to the ascending aorta through a median sternotomy, and concurrent endovascular stenting of the aneurysmal aorta.

Clinical discussion

A combination of complete vascular rings and aortic arch aneurysm poses a potentially higher surgical risk. The use of the less invasive endovascular stenting of the aorta as well as a limited open surgical approach offers a lesser risk, especially in poor pre-operative states.

Conclusion

A multidisciplinary team effort is key. Hybrid management of aneurysmal congenital vascular rings in high risk adults offers an attractive management alternative to conventional surgery.

•

Aneurysmal congenital vascular rings are rare in adults.

•

Multidisciplinary team approach is key.

•

Single stage hybrid management is an alternative to open surgical management.

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.

Hybrid two-stage repair of Stanford A dissection with visceral or peripheral malperfusion

Background

The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of two-stage hybrid aortic repair at the distal aorta of Stanford A dissection with malperfusion.

Methods

This retrospective case series included 20 patients with Stanford A dissection administered two-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) about 1 month after central repair because of visceral or limb malperfusion. The patients were examined by computed tomography (CT) angiography at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after operation. Recovery of malperfusion and true lumen index were evaluated during follow-up.

Results

Twenty patients underwent two-stage hybrid aortic repair, including 11 males and 9 females. The follow-up time was 24 ± 7 months. No intervention-related complications were observed, including stent graft-induced new re-entry tears, death, stroke and spinal cord injury. Malperfusion in all cases was corrected. The true lumen was not enlarged enough 1 month after the first surgery. Thrombosis of the false lumen was observed around the elephant trunk at the carina level and the celiac artery. Three months after second stage TEVAR, the false lumen thrombosis was resorbed; in addition, the trunk was fully expanded at the carina level, and the true lumen was enlarged at the celiac artery.

Conclusions

Two-stage hybrid aortic repair for residual true lumen in the distal aorta 1 month after initial surgery is helpful for descending aorta remodeling and effective in treating malperfusion. This procedure may be a good option for patients suffering from Stanford A dissection with small true lumen in the distal aorta and malperfusion.

[Surgical treatment of DeBakey type 1 aortic dissection]

The article is devoted to the founder of Russian Research Center for Surgery, academician B.V. Petrovsky, who created a multi-field surgical institution of the highest world standards. Treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and dissections being the most difficult and laborious has been solved at the Russian Research Center for Surgery from initial procedures to the most difficult hybrid interventions and total aortic repair.

Is there a prospect for hybrid aortic arch surgery?

The surge of endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm in current modern aortic surgery practice has been the key for surgical management of elective cases of thoracic aortic aneurysms. This has paved way for the combined hybrid approach to be amongst the armamentarium for the management of aortic arch disease. The pivotal understanding of the aortic arch natural history coupled with device technology advancement allowed surgeons insight into delivery of hybrid surgery with acceptable morbidity and mortality results. This review article provides current insights into hybrid technique of aortic arch aneurysm repair and the evidences behind its applicability to arch surgery. It is aimed to highlight the challenges encountered for this innovative approach and correlate its challenges to those that are met by the conventional open aortic arch repair.

Debranching solutions in endografting for complex thoracic aortic dissections

BACKGROUND

Conventional surgical repair of thoracic aortic dissections is a challenge due to mortality and morbidity risks.

OBJECTIVES

We analyzed our experience in hybrid aortic arch repair for complex dissections of the aortic arch.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2013, 18 patients (the mean age of 67 ± 8 years-old) underwent hybrid aortic arch repair. The procedural strategy was determined on the individual patient.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients had type I repair using trifurcation and another patient with bifurcation graft. Two patients had type II repair with replacement of the ascending aorta. Two patients received extra-anatomic bypass grafting to left carotid artery allowing covering of zone 1. Stent graft deployment rate was 100%. No patients experienced stroke. One patient with total debranching of the aortic arch following an acute dissection of the proximal arch expired 3 months after TEVAR due to heart failure. There were no early to midterm endoleaks. The median follow-up was 20 ± 8 months with patency rate of 100%.

CONCLUSION

Various debranching solutions for different complex scenarios of the aortic arch serve as less invasive procedures than conventional open surgery enabling safe and effective treatment of this highly selected subgroup of patients with complex aortic pathologies.