The Aortic Team Model and Collaborative Decision Pathways for the Management of Complex Aortic Disease: Clinical Practice Update From the Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons/Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery/Canadian Association for Interventional Radiology

The Aortic Team Model for the Management of the Distal Arch, Descending Thoracic and Thoracoabdominal Aorta: Appraisal at 3 Years

BACKGROUND

 This study aimed to assess feasibility, logistical challenges, and clinical outcomes associated with the implementation of an Aortic Team model for the management of distal arch, descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic disease.

METHODS

 An Aortic Team care pathway was implemented in November 2019. Working as a unit, two cardiac surgeons, two vascular surgeons, an interventional radiologist, a cardiologist, and an anesthesiologist collectively determined care decisions via multispecialty presence at an Aortic Clinic. Cardiac and vascular surgeons operated in tandem for open procedures. Interventional radiology participated alongside cardiac and vascular for endovascular procedures. Cardiology aided in medical therapies for heritable and degenerative disease, and had a lead role for genetics and high-risk pregnancy referrals. The model spanned three hospitals. Clinical outcomes at 3 years were assessed.

RESULTS

 There were 35 descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal surgeries and 77 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs. Endoarch devices were used in 7 cases (Gore Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis, 4, Terumo RelayBranch, 3) and an endothoracoabdominal device in 4 cases (Cook Zenith t-branch). The Aortic Clinic acquired 456 patients, with yearly increases (54 patients [year 1], 181 patients [year 2], 221 patients [year 3]). For surgery, mortality was 8.6% (3/35), permanent paralysis 5.7% (2/35), stroke 8.6% (3/35), permanent dialysis 0%, and reinterventions 8.6% (3/35). For endovascular cases, mortality was 3.9% (3/77), permanent paralysis 3.9% (3/77), stroke 5.2% (4/77), permanent dialysis 1.3% (1/77), and reinterventions 16.9% (13/77).

CONCLUSION

 An Aortic Team model is feasible and ensures all treatment options are considered. Conventional open thoracoabdominal procedures showed acceptable outcomes. Endoarch technology shows early promise.

The Call for the "Interventional/Hybrid" Aortic Surgeon: Open, Endovascular, and Hybrid Therapies of the Aortic Arch

Aortic arch pathology is relatively rare but potentially highly fatal and associated with considerable comorbidity. Operative mortality and complication rates have improved over time but remain high. In response, aortic arch surgery is one of the most rapidly evolving areas of cardiac surgery in terms of surgical volume and improved outcomes. Moreover, there has been a surge in novel devices and techniques, many of which have been developed by or codeveloped with vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists. Nevertheless, the extent of arch surgery, the choice of nadir temperature, cannulation, and perfusion strategies, and the use of open, endovascular, or hybrid options vary according to country, centre, and surgeon. In this review article, we provide a technical overview of the surgical, total endovascular, and hybrid repair options for aortic arch pathology through historical developments and contemporary results. We highlight key information for surgeons, cardiologists, and trainees to understand the management of patients with aortic arch pathology. We conclude by discussing training paradigms, the role of aortic teams, and gaps in knowledge, arguing for the need for wire skills for the future "interventional aortic surgeon" and increased research into techniques and novel devices to continue improving outcomes for aortic arch surgery.