Surgical treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of type B aortic dissection involving the aortic arch

OBJECTIVE

In the present report, we have described the outcomes of endovascular repair, hybrid arch repair, and open surgical repair for type B dissection involving the aortic arch (B_{1-2, D}).

METHODS

Cases of endovascular repair, hybrid arch repair, and open surgical repair performed between January 2015 and December 2019 for aortic dissection designated as B_{1-2, D} by the Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons classification were retrospectively analyzed. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at follow-up. The secondary end points included early mortality, early morbidities, and aortic-related late events. Kaplan-Meier curves were created to analyze survival from all-cause mortality and freedom from aortic-related late events in the endovascular, hybrid, and open groups. Propensity score matching and stratification (stratified by proximal dissection extension: B_{1, D} and B_{2, D}) were performed as sensitivity analyses to compare the outcomes among the three treatment patterns after controlling for major confounders.

RESULTS

The present study included 151 patients (men, 79.5%; mean age, 47.3 ± 10.5 years), with 72 (47.7%) in the endovascular group, 46 (30.5%) in the hybrid group, and 33 (21.8%) in the open group. No significant difference was noted in early mortality between the endovascular, hybrid, and open groups (1.4% vs 2.2% vs 3.0%; P = .791). The incidence of early endoleak was significantly greater (33.3% vs 13.0% vs 6.1%; P = .002) and the incidence of renal function deterioration was less (4.2% vs 26.1% vs 24.2%; P = .001) after endovascular repair vs hybrid arch repair and open surgery. After a median follow-up of 40.0 months (range, 0-84.0 months), no significant differences were found in all-cause mortality (5.6% vs 4.3% vs 3.0%; P = 1.0), aortic-related late events (16.7% vs 15.2% vs 12.1%; P = .834), or late endoleak (9.7% vs 4.3% vs 6.1%; P = .630) after endovascular, hybrid, and open surgery. The propensity score matching and stratification analyses displayed consistent outcomes for early mortality, all-cause mortality, and aortic-related late events among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The mid- to long-term outcomes after endovascular repair, hybrid arch repair, and open surgical repair for type B dissection involving the aortic arch (B_{1-2, D}) were favorable and comparable in selected patients. Extensive experience and multidisciplinary teamwork are prerequisites for individualized strategies for repair of B_{1-2, D}.

Long-term results of hybrid aortic arch repair using landing zone 0: a single-centre study

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been gradually extended to the aortic arch region, with improved results. However, the rates of strokes and endoleaks in a hybrid TEVAR remain high. The goal of this study was to clarify the effectiveness of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing using our treatment strategy.

METHODS

From April 2008 to March 2020, a total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study, with a median follow-up period of 3.2 years. The procedures included total debranching TEVAR with graft replacement of the ascending aorta in 62 patients, total debranching TEVAR with ascending aorta banding in 19 patients and total debranching TEVAR without ascending aorta banding in 21 patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality and hospital deaths were 1.0% (n = 1) and 3.9% (n = 4), respectively. The rates of aortic complications and endoleaks during the first 30 days postoperatively were 8.8% (n = 9) and 4.9% (n = 5), respectively. There was no type 1a endoleak, whereas retrograde type A dissection occurred in 2 (2.0%) patients. The rate of late aortic events was 3.9% (n = 4); there were no late endoleaks or aneurysm ruptures. The 10-year survival rate was 73.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 60.3-83.8%]. The 10-year rates of aorta-related deaths and aortic events when performing a competitive-risk analysis were 29.4% (95% CI 16.3-42.5%) and 7.2 (95% CI 23.0-51.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory early and long-term results of a hybrid TEVAR with a zone 0 landing were achieved using our treatment strategy. When performing hybrid TEVAR in zone 0, postoperative aortic events may be reduced by accurate preoperative assessment of the ascending aorta.

Early-to-midterm outcomes of aortic balloon occlusion technique versus hybrid procedure for aortic arch diseases

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare the early-to-midterm outcomes of patients treated with the frozen elephant trunk procedure with aortic balloon occlusion (FET-ABO) versus hybrid repair for aortic arch diseases.

METHODS

Patients who underwent the FET-ABO (n = 134) and the hybrid procedure (n = 220) from 2017 to 2020 at our institution were analysed retrospectively. Early-to-midterm outcomes were compared using inverse probability weighting. Low-risk and high-risk subgroup analyses were performed according to the cut-off of the additive European System for Cardiac Operative Evaluation value of 6.

RESULTS

The present study demonstrated similar 30-day mortality (3.7% vs 8.6%; P = 0.118) and adverse events between the FET-ABO and the hybrid groups. Fewer intraoperative red blood cell transfusions (0.54 ± 1.45 vs 1.26 ± 2.47 U; P = 0.001), decreased total hospital costs (P < 0.001) and considerable early-to-midterm survival [crude: hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.91; P = 0.030; adjusted: HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.91; P = 0.032) were obtained with the FET-ABO compared to the hybrid procedure. The inverse probability weighting method substantiated the foregoing results. Adjusted subgroup analyses suggested that the FET-ABO procedure had a trend towards improved survival in low-risk patients (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.93; P = 0.041) and achieved outcomes comparable to those of the hybrid procedure in high-risk patients (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15-1.42; P = 0.176).

CONCLUSIONS

The FET-ABO technique could be better promoted in hospitals lacking experience and equipment and could be more viable and cost-effective for selected patients compared with the hybrid procedure.

Type II hybrid arch repair versus total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk: a propensity score-matched analysis

 

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the objective outcomes of type II hybrid arch repair (HAR) and total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (TAR with FET).

METHODS

Data from 528 patients who underwent aortic arch repair from January 2017 to June 2019 were collected, which consisted of 175 type II HAR and 353 TAR with FET. The propensity score-matched analysis identified a subgroup of 90 pairs. Perioperative data and mid-term follow-up results were assessed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the composite adverse events (type II HAR, 20.6%, 36/175 vs TAR with FET, 17.8%, 63/353, P = 0.450). Multivariable logistic analysis of the 528 patients showed that the procedure type (type II HAR or TAR with FET) was not associated with composite adverse events, 30-day mortality or stroke. The 3-year survival rates were 84.8% in the type II HAR group and 90.1% in the TAR with FET group (P = 0.12). The 3-year reintervention-free rates in the type II HAR and TAR with FET groups were 98.7% and 96.5% (P = 0.22), respectively. After matching, no significant difference was found in the incidence of composite adverse events or the 3-year survival and reintervention-free rates.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant clinical differences were found in the early and mid-term outcomes of type II HAR and TAR with FET. The long-term outcomes remain to be investigated. Careful patient selection for individualized approaches is the key to taking full advantage of the 2 surgical procedures.

Midterm Outcomes of Zone 0 Antegrade Endograft Implantation During Type I Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair

OBJECTIVE

Type I hybrid arch repair has become popular as a procedure that is less invasive than total arch replacement. The major advantage of this technique is that antegrade endograft implantation can be performed during the procedure, thereby avoiding the complications of introducing the endograft from the groin. The aim of this study was to assess the midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation.

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients who underwent type I hybrid repair with antegrade endograft implantation from 2009 to 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, and peri-operative and late results were collected from a prospective database and analysed.

RESULTS

Four patients (13%) were female and the median age was 78 years. Median aneurysm size was 64 mm. Six patients (20%) developed stroke, and the 30 day mortality rate was 3%. Two patients suffered aortic dissection at the site of debranching anastomosis. The median follow up was 5.2 years. All aneurysms remained stable or had decreased in size at three years, and 82% were stable at five years. Overall survival was 79% at three years and 71% at five years. The rates of freedom from aorta related death were 86% at three and five years, respectively. During the follow up period, three additional left subclavian artery embolisations and one endograft relining due to type IIIb endoleak were required.

CONCLUSION

Midterm outcomes of type I hybrid aortic arch repair with antegrade endograft implantation for aortic arch aneurysms are reported. Although the incidence of peri-operative stroke was high, late sac behaviour was acceptable.

Early outcomes of hybrid type II arch repair versus total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk in acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of hybrid type II arch repair (HAR) and total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (TAR with FET) for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection patients.

METHODS

From January 2017 to June 2019, the clinical data of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection patients in a single centre were retrospectively reviewed; there were 92 cases of HAR and 268 cases of TAR with FET, with 56 pairs by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

After matching, the composite end points including 30-day mortality, stroke, paraplegia, renal failure, hepatic failure, reintubation or tracheotomy and low cardiac output syndrome were comparable (21.4%, 12/56 in the HAR group vs 21.4%, 12/56 in the TAR with FET group, P = 1.000). The rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) was significantly lower in the HAR group (58.9%, 33/56 vs 80.4%, 45/56, P = 0.031). The distribution of AKI stage according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria was different (P = 0.039), with more patients suffering from high-grade AKI in the TAR with FET group. Multivariable logistic analysis showed that the procedure type (HAR or TAR with FET) was not an independent predictor of composite adverse events or stroke. HAR was identified as a protective factor against AKI (odds ratio 0.485, 95% confidence interval 0.287-0.822; P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection, no significant differences were found in early outcomes between the 2 groups, but HAR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of AKI.

Hybrid arch frozen elephant trunk repair: evidence from the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative

Background

The frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique has become an increasingly popular strategy for aortic reconstruction in the setting of extensive thoracic aortic aneurysms or dissections. The objective of this study is to report on the Canadian experience with the FET technique in both the elective and emergent settings.

Methods

A total of 167 consecutive patients (mean age 65±13 years, 30% female, 25% re-operation) underwent elective (70%) and non-elective (30%) aortic arch reconstruction with the FET technique between May 2008 and October 2019 in six centers of the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative (CTAC). In-hospital clinical endpoints and early imaging endpoints were prospectively collected and analyzed.

Results

All 167 patients underwent successful FET implantation. In-hospital mortality occurred in 14 patients (8%), stroke occurred in 22 patients (13%) and temporary and permanent spinal cord ischemia (SCI) occurred in 6 (3.6%) and 3 (1.8%) patients, respectively. Prolonged mechanical ventilation was required in 35 patients (21%), renal failure requiring dialysis in 14 patients (8%) and atrial fibrillation in 59 patients (36%). The median hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay were 3 [interquartile range (IQR): 1, 6] and 10 (IQR: 7, 17) days, respectively. The rate of type 1A endoleak was 3.6%, with the lowest rate in patients who underwent a total arch replacement with a hybrid FET graft (0%) and the highest among patients who had a hemiarch with antegrade thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) deployment (25%). The rate of other types of endoleak and stent complications was comparatively low.

Conclusions

The early CTAC experience with the FET operation demonstrates technical feasibility and good early clinical outcomes in elective and emergent patients. Further analysis is required to explore variations in technique and their potential impact on early and late outcomes.

Efficacy of ascending aortic banding technique concomitant with type I hybrid aortic arch repair in high-risk patients

Banding of the ascending aorta has been introduced as a less complex procedure to optimize the proximal landing zone of the stent graft in hybrid aortic arch surgery. However, data about the long-term results and effects of this technique are still limited. We aimed to study the efficacy of banding of the ascending aorta in hybrid aortic arch repair. The study included 11 high-risk patients with dilated ascending aorta (wider than 38 mm in diameter) undergoing ascending aortic banding for hybrid arch repair. Clinical outcomes, including technical success, endoleaks, perioperative mortality and morbidity, and sequential remodeling of the ascending aorta were investigated. The average diameter of the ascending aorta had been reduced (p = 0.02) from 42.1 mm (range = 39.0-46.4) to 37.2 mm (range = 35.6-38.6) after banding procedure. The technical success rate was 100.0%. No type I endoleak occurred, but 2 cases of distal stent graft-induced new entry required re-interventions. The 5-year survival and freedom from aortic events rates both were 81.8%. The ascending aortic diameter remained stable and no proximal migration of the stent graft was observed during the study period. The 5-year results validated the durability of this therapeutic modality, especially in high-risk patients.

Late complications after hybrid aortic arch repair

OBJECTIVE

Although hybrid arch repair has gained widespread application as an alternative option for high-risk patients, concerns about its long-term durability remain an important issue. The aim of this study was to investigate late complications after hybrid arch repair.

METHODS

From January 2002 to December 2017, hybrid arch repair was performed in 65 patients with aortic arch disease (median age, 66.1 years; range, 41-86 years). Hybrid arch repair was defined as debranching involving at least one supra-aortic vessel bypass and simultaneous or staged endovascular thoracic stent grafting. We retrospectively analyzed late complications including reintervention, open conversion, and aortic-related death. The median follow-up period was 60.1 months (range, 1-170 months).

RESULTS

The in-hospital mortality rate was 6% (4/65). Except for early death (n = 4) and early open conversion (n = 2), late complications were observed in 25 patients (25/59 [42%]). The median time interval between the initial procedure and late complication was 36.6 months (range, 1-92 months). Late complications included delayed type I endoleak (n = 8), distal stent-induced new entry (n = 3), stent migration (n = 3), retrograde type A dissection (n = 2), aortopulmonary fistula (n = 2), aortoesophageal fistula (n = 1), stent fracture (n = 1), infection (n = 1), and sudden death (n = 4). Six of these patients (10%) underwent late open conversion. The overall survival rates at 3 years and 6 years were 71.1 ± 7.4% and 57.2 ± 11.3%, respectively. The aortic event-free rates at 3 years and 6 years were 52.1 ± 7.3% and 39.4 ± 10.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Late complications in hybrid arch repair occurred in a substantial proportion of patients during midterm follow-up. Regardless of zone type, the incidence of late complications was relatively high. This study suggests that timely reintervention and open conversion are important for rescuing patients, but repeated reinterventions and conservative strategies are not recommended. Aggressive management and life-long surveillance after hybrid arch repair are mandatory for better outcomes.

Conservative treatment of type A aortic dissection following hybrid arch repair

OBJECTIVE

Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) following hybrid arch repair (HAR) is a lethal complication. Open surgical repair is the ideal treatment, but this can be difficult, as most candidates have complications and are unsuitable for the conventional open aortic repair. We herein report three cases of TAAD after HAR and assess the treatment options.

METHODS

Of 261 aortic arch repair cases between April 2010 and March 2018, 38 underwent HAR using debranching of all the arch vessels followed by stent graft implantation landing proximally in zone 0 (type 1 HAR). Three cases suffered from TAAD, and their background characteristics and post-operative outcomes were studied retrospectively.

RESULTS

The three TAAD cases were elderly with a high risk of mortality due to comorbidities. TAAD for Cases 1, 2, and 3 was detected on post-operative day (POD) 11, POD11, and during the procedure, respectively. Case 1 was complicated with both respiratory and renal failures, and Case 3 suffered from severe neurological impairment when TAAD was detected. No additional open aortic repair was performed in any cases. Case 3 died on POD5 due to aortic rupture. Cases 1 and 2 have survived for more than 50 months since their initial surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

TAAD following HAR can be detected with post-operative imaging despite a lack of signs noted during the intra- and post-operative periods. Conservative therapy might, therefore, be an acceptable option for subacute-onset TAAD following HAR with stable hemodynamics, even though such patients do required a very careful follow-up.

Type II arch hybrid debranching procedure

Management of aortic arch aneurysm and dissection continues to evolve as endovascular options play an increasing role in treating thoracic aortopathies. Although conventional open treatment of aortic arch disease with total arch replacement still remains the gold standard, in patients with old age and/or high comorbid disease index, there is significant associated morbidity and mortality. The hybrid arch procedure, which aims to minimize cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest times, is a particularly appealing surgical option in this cohort of patients. The hybrid arch concept essentially entails three main principles: (I) open debranching of the great vessels; (II) creation of proper proximal (zone 0 landing) and distal landing zones, and; (III) concomitant or delayed endovascular stent grafting of the aortic arch. The classification scheme for hybrid arch debranching procedures is based on the extent of proximal and distal landing zone reconstruction required, and thus the need and extent of cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest management strategies to be employed. In this illustrated article, we describe the details of the type II hybrid arch debranching procedure, where the ascending aorta and aortic arch pathology is typically treated by reconstruction of ascending aorta ﹢ arch vessel debranching, with concomitant antegrade stent grafting of the aortic arch.