Complications after aortic arch hybrid repair

Endovascular treatment under laparotomy with n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate in a pediatric traumatic aortic injury: a case report

BACKGROUND

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines recommend thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt traumatic aortic injuries (BTAI) in adults, especially BTAI grades II to IV. TEVAR is increasingly performed for BTAI in children and adolescents; however, reports on treatment strategies are limited. Percutaneous routes for stenting may not be available in children with anatomically small vessel diameters, and the indications for stent grafts are challenging because of the steep aortic angle.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of TEVAR for BTAI performed under laparotomy with n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA) injection in an adolescent patient. The patient was a 13-year-old male who sustained injuries due to a fall and presented with severe hypoxia and shock on admission. Computed tomography (CT) showed a thoracic aortic injury with a pseudoaneurysm (SVS grade III) and bilateral pulmonary contusions. We planned to perform TEVAR after venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); however, because of the small diameters of the bilateral common femoral arteries, we placed a stent graft through the left common iliac artery under laparotomy. In addition, the proximal landing zone of the stent graft to the thoracic pseudoaneurysm was short, and we filled the pseudoaneurysm with NBCA after deploying the stent graft to prevent endoleaks. Subsequent CTs showed no endoleaks, and the patient was discharged on day 110.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a case of TEVAR in a 13-year-old boy who underwent laparotomy with NBCA injection into a pseudoaneurysm. This method may be useful as an alternative when percutaneous access is not available, and the proximal landing zone cannot be reached.

Anatomical Suitability of a Standard Subclavian Branched Endograft in Previous Zone 2 Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

CLINICAL IMPACT

The present paper highlighted a significant feasibility rate for the Gore Thoracic Branch Endoprothesis among patients previously treated with TEVAR and proximal landing in zone. The limited number of stent-graft configurations that could have been implanted in a considerable portion of our cohort could help clinicians to develop a proper endovascular inventory related to this device, paving the way for its wide application.

The Impact of Aortic Arch Morphology on Periprocedural Stroke in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Objectives: Stroke after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continues to be one of the most concerning complications. Anatomical variations of the aortic arch may increase the risk of embolic debris entering the brain during transfemoral catheter manipulation. We aimed to analyze the influence of aortic arch morphology on the occurrence of ischemic stroke during TAVR. Methods: We performed a retrospective, 1:2 propensity-matched case-control study to compare patients with and without periprocedural stroke (defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium III endpoints) after transfemoral TAVR between June 2007 and September 2022. Multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) analysis of pre-TAVR aortograms was performed to investigate arch anatomy, configuration, curvature, and the take-off angles of the epi-aortic vessels. Results: A total of 2371 patients were enrolled in this study. Periprocedural ischemic stroke was observed in 67 patients. After propensity score matching, this study included 201 patients: 67 (case) vs. 134 (control). The mean age was 80.0 ± 13.2 and 81.6 ± 6.4 years (p = 0.5), and the mean Euroscore II was 4.1 ± 3.6 and 4.3 ± 41 (p = 0.7). There was no difference in arch anatomy (p = 0.2) and configuration (p = 0.8) between the groups. Arch curvature (p = 0.9) and angulation of the brachiocephalic (p = 0.3) and left common carotid artery (p = 0.058) also did not differ significantly between the case and control groups. Conclusions: MSCT analysis in this propensity score-matched study found no correlation between aortic arch geometry and TAVR-associated stroke.

Hybrid technique and total arch replacement combined with frozen elephant trunk in acute aortic dissection involving the aortic arch: a multi-center propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the hybrid technique yields superior outcomes in comparison with the total arch replacement combined with frozen elephant trunk (TAR + FET) for acute aortic dissection (AAD) involving the aortic arch.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study using propensity-score matching included patients with AAD involving the aortic arch admitted to Nanjing First Hospital and Shanghai General Hospital from January 2015 to June 2020. The in-hospital and mid-term outcomes were compared between patients who received hybrid treatment (n = 136) and those who received TAR + FET (n = 415). Study end points included in-hospital mortality and morbidity, and mid-term rates of death from all causes, stroke, and aortic re-intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 121 pairs were formed after matching. In-hospital mortality did not differ between hybrid versus TAR + FET groups (5.8% vs. 7.9%, P = .860). Up to 6 years, patients treated with TAR + FET were associated with reduced rate of aortic re-intervention (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.97; P = .023). There was no difference in death from all causes and stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid technique and TAR + FET showed comparable mid-term survival. Hybrid technique showed higher rate of aortic re-intervention and should therefore be applied with great caution in patients with AAD involving the aortic arch.

Systematic Review on Customized and Non-customized Device Techniques for the Endovascular Repair of the Aortic Arch

PURPOSE

Open repair remains the standard of care for aortic arch pathologies. However, endovascular management became an attractive alternative for high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of the available endovascular techniques for aortic arch pathology management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the English literature (2000-2022) using PubMed, EMBASE, via Ovid, and CENTRAL databases (February 1, 2022) was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on patients with aortic arch pathologies managed with custom-made devices ([CMDs] fenestrated or branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair [F/BTEVAR]) and non-CMDs (parallel graft or surgeon-modified FTEVAR) were eligible. Studies reporting on hybrid or open repair were excluded. Studies' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and cerebrovascular events (CVEs). Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (2135 patients) were included. Treatment indications were mainly dissections (652 cases [48.0%, 652/1358]; 90 type A, 506 type B; 364 acute, 163 chronic) and aneurysms (46.9%, 582/1239). Five studies (211 patients) reported on FTEVAR and 10 (388 patients) on BTEVAR. For FTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.3%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% and CVE rate was 12.3%. Ten deaths (9.7%) and 19 re-interventions (9%) were recorded during follow-up (24 months). Regarding BTEVAR, technical success rate was 98.7%, and 30 day mortality and CVE rates were 5.4% and 11.0%, respectively. During follow-up (27 months), 64 deaths (18.7%) and 33 re-interventions (9.6%) were recorded. Parallel graft technique was reported in 11 studies (901 patients). Technical success rate was 76.4%. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% and 32 (4.3%) CVEs were recorded. Thirty-five deaths (4.4%) and 43 re-interventions (5.5%) were reported during follow-up (27 months). Surgeon-modified FTEVAR was described in 5 studies (635 patients). Technical success rate was 91.6%. At 30 days, 15 deaths (2.3%) and 22 CVEs (3.5%) were recorded. During follow-up (19 months), 26 deaths (4.2%) and 21 re-interventions (3.6%) were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular arch repair presented a variable technical success; >95% for F/BTEVAR; ≤90% for non-CMDs. Acceptable 30 day mortality rates were reported. Cerebrovascular event rates ranged up to 10%. These findings, adjacent to the estimated midterm mortality and re-interventions, set the need for further improvement.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Endovascular arch repair gains popularity as a valuable alternative, especially in patients considered unfit for open repair. According the available literature, any endovascular technique, including custom-made or off-the-shelf solutions, may be applied successfully, with acceptable early mortality. However, the perio-operative cerebrovascular event rate is still an issue, indicating the need for further advancements.

What is the Optimal Proximal Landing Zone of the Stent Graft in Treatment of Aortic Type B Dissection?

PURPOSE

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) represents a serious complication of endovascular treatment for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). To avoid RTAD, it is recommended to land the proximal end of the stent graft in a non-dissected aortic segment. In this study, we investigated whether landing in the dissection area increased the number of events at the proximal site.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of endovascular treatments for TBAD at a single institution between 2009 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: group A, with a proximal landing zone entirely within the dissected area, and group B, with the proximal extent of the seal zone in the non-dissected area. We evaluated the occurrence of proximal events, including RTAD, and examined long-term outcomes to assess the validity of landing in the dissection area.

RESULTS

The study included eighty-nine patients who underwent endovascular treatment for TBAD. New intimal tears in the proximal landing site occurred in 3 cases (3.4%), with 1 case (2%) in group A and 2 cases (5.1%) in group B, showing no significant difference. Among the three cases, one (1.1%) in group B with zone 2 landing resulted in RTAD. At 60 months, the overall survival was 85%, and freedom from aorta-related mortality was 88%, with no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Even if the proximal landing is in a dissected area, a treatment strategy performed in zone 3 without proximal landing in zone 2, seeking a non-dissected area, can still provide sufficient therapeutic effects. Level of Evidence 3 Retrospective single-center cohort analysis.

Comparison of bare and nonbare stent grafts during thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair of the aortic arch

OBJECTIVE

We compared the outcomes of patients treated with nonbare stents (NBS) and proximal bare stents (PBS) endografts with a proximal landing zone in the aortic arch during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort, observational, multicenter study that included 361 consecutive TEVAR procedures undertaken between November 2005 and December 2021. TEVAR patients with both BS and NBS Relay stent graft configurations with proximal landing in zones 1, 2, or 3 were enrolled. Preoperative anamnestic and morphological data, clinical outcomes, and aortic modifications 30 days after surgery and at the latest follow-up available were collected. The primary outcome was freedom from proximal endoleak (type IA) comparing the two configurations. Total and detailed endoleak rates, clinical and technical success, intraoperative additional maneuvers, major adverse events, and reinterventions were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 4.9 (interquartile range, 2.0-8.1) years. No statistically significant difference between NBS and PBS patients concerning 30-day major adverse events, retrograde aortic dissection, disabling stroke, or late type IA endoleak (10.8% vs 7.8%; P = .597). Aneurysmal disease (P = .026), PLZ diameter of >34 mm (P = .026), aortic tortuosity index of >1.4 (P = .008), type III aortic arch (P = .068), and PLZ thrombus (P = .014) identified as risk factors by univariate Cox regression analysis. PLZ thrombus was the only type IA endoleak risk factor at multivariate Cox regression (P = .016).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant difference in freedom from type IA endoleak, retrograde dissection, or disabling stroke observed between the NBS and the BS configuration of the Relay endograft. Proximal landing zone thrombotic apposition was a prominent risk factor for type IA endoleak after TEVAR.

Anatomic Utility of Single Branched Thoracic Endograft During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

INTRODUCTION

Single branched thoracic endografts (SBTEs) have been designed for pathology requiring zone 2 seal during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Numerous criteria must be met to allow for their implantation. Our aim was to analyze anatomic suitability for a next generation SBTE.

METHODS

We reviewed 150 TEVAR procedures between 2015 and 2019. Proximal seal was: zone 0 in 21 (16%), zone 1 in 4 (3%), zone 2 in 52 (40%), zone 3 in 45 (35%), and zone 4 or distal in 7 (5%). We analyzed the Zone 2 patient's angiograms and CT angiograms using centerline software to measure arterial diameters and length in relation to the left common carotid artery (LCCA), left subclavian artery (LSA) and proximal extent of aortic disease to determine if patients met anatomic criteria of a novel SBTE.

RESULTS

Zone 2 average age was 64.4 ± 16.3 years; 34 patients were male (65%). Indications for repair were aneurysm (N = 9, 17%), acute dissection (N = 14, 27%), chronic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration (N = 7, 13%), intramural hematoma (N = 9, 17%), penetrating aortic ulcer (N = 5, 10%), and blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI, N = 8, 15%). LSA revascularization occurred in 27 patients (52%). Overall, 20 (38.5%) of the zone 2 patients met anatomic criteria. Patients with dissection met anatomic criteria less frequently than aneurysm (33% [10 of 30] vs 64% [9 of 14]). Patients treated for BTAI rarely met the anatomic criteria (1 of 8, 13%). The main anatomic constraints were an inadequate distance from the LCCA to the LSA takeoff and from the LCCA to the start of the aortic disease process.

CONCLUSION

Less than half of patients who require seal in zone 2 met criteria for this SBTE. Patients with aneurysms met anatomic criteria more often than those with dissection. The device would have little applicability in treating patients with BTAI.

Long-Term Outcomes in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Complicated Type B Aortic Dissection or Intramural Hematoma Depending on Proximal Landing Zone

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the preferred treatment for complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) or intramural hematoma (IMH). This study aimed to investigate the association of the proximal landing zone and its morphology with long-term outcomes in patients with TBAD or IMH. A total of 94 patients who underwent TEVAR for TBAD or IMH between 10/2003 and 01/2020 were included. The cohort was divided according to the proximal landing in Ishimaru zone 2 or 3 and the presence of a healthy landing zone (HLZ; non-dissected or aneurysmatic, ≥2 cm length). Primary outcome was freedom from aortic reintervention. Secondary endpoints were freedom from aortic growth, stroke, spinal cord ischemia, retrograde dissection, proximal stent-graft induced new entry (pSINE), debranching failure, and mortality. Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with mortality as a competing risk. A proximal TEVAR landing in zone 2 was associated with higher rates of reinterventions compared to zone 3 (33% vs. 15%, p = 0.031), spinal cord ischemia (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.037), and pSINE (13% vs. 2%, p = 0.032). No difference was found for the other outcomes, including mortality. Landing in dissected segments was not associated with impaired results. Proximal TEVAR landing in zone 3 may be preferable with regard to long-term aortic reintervention in patients with TBAD or IMH.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery with a Castor stent graft

OBJECTIVE

Despite the rapid development of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), it is still a challenge to maintain the blood flow of the branch arteries above the aortic arch in Stanford type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery (LSA). The Castor stent graft is an integrated, customized, single-branch stent that enables reconstruction of the LSA. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of the Castor stent graft for type B aortic dissection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An extensive electronic literature search (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322146) was undertaken to identify all articles published up to August 2022 that described thoracic aortic repair with branch stents in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the LSA. The quality of the included studies was analyzed using the MINORS criteria. The primary outcome measures were the technical success rate, early mortality rate, endoleak rate, and 1-year survival rate. The secondary outcome measures were the stroke rate, left upper extremity ischemia rate, and target vessel patency rate.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 415 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. The LSA was successfully preserved in all procedures. The technical success rate was 97.5% (95% CI: 0.953-0.991); the intraoperative endoleak rate was 0.1% (95% CI: 0.000-0.012); the intraoperative LSA patency rate was 99.52%; the intraoperative LSA stent deformation and stenosis rate was 0.15% (95% CI: 0.000-0.051); the early type I endoleak rate was 1.6% (95% CI: 0.003-0.035); the 30-day mortality rate was 0.96%; the early reintervention rate was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.000-0.040); and the perioperative stroke rate was 0% (95% CI: 0.000-0.005). The 1-year survival rate was 99.7% (95% CI: 0.976-1.000). The half-year LSA patency rate was 99.3%, the 1-year LSA patency rate was 97.58%, and the 2-year LSA patency rate was 95.23%. During the follow-up period, the leakage rate was 0.3% (95% CI: 0.000-0.017), the incidence of left upper extremity ischemia rate was 0.5% (95% CI: 0.000-0.035), and the deformation and stenosis rate of the LSA stent was 2.2% (95% CI: 0.06-0.046).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that endovascular repair of type B aortic dissection using the Castor stent-graft may be technically feasible and effective. However, this conclusion needs to be interpreted with caution, as the quality of evidence for all outcomes is between low and very low.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022322146].

Aortic Arch Repair Using Open and Hybrid Techniques: A Systematic Review

Early surgical intervention is critical for treatment of aortic arch aneurysms and dissections, but limited comprehensive data exist to define the optimal approach for surgical management with respect to postoperative outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the 2 most common surgical approaches-total arch replacement and hybrid arch repair. We referenced the electronic PubMed database reporting on outcomes for these surgical approaches from inception to June 2022. Our initial search query returned a total of 2,517 records. All records were independently screened for adherence to our inclusion criteria and a total of 12 retrospective cohort studies were identified as appropriate for inclusion. Across the included studies, a total of 618 patients underwent hybrid repair, as compared to 2,104 patients who underwent total arch replacement. We found that most of the literature supported the findings of similar rates of permanent neurologic dysfunction, acute kidney injury, and short-term mortality between approaches and higher postoperative reintervention rates following hybrid repair. Reported outcomes of studies included in this review often conflicted regarding midterm and long-term survival, as well as hospital and intensive care unit length of stay following open and hybrid repair. Future studies should address midterm and long-term survival with a prospective study design.

Acute thrombotic occlusion of a brachiocephalic branch graft and pseudoaneurysm formation after debranching surgery for a "non-A non-B" aortic dissection

Non-A non-B aortic dissection is a pathology with potentially life-threatening consequences, and aortic debranching followed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair is one of the possible treatment options. Branch graft occlusion is an infrequent complication and no definite guidelines exist about postoperative antithrombotic therapy nor preoperative evaluation of individual anatomical characteristics-in particular regarding cerebral circulation-in such patients. We present the case of a 54-year-old man undergoing an aortic debranching procedure for a thoracoabdominal aortic dissection originating in the aortic arch, complicated by thrombotic occlusion of the brachiocephalic branch of the prosthesis and pseudoaneurysm of the ascending aorta, with our management and considerations.

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.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Aberrant Subclavian Artery and Stanford Type B Aortic Intramural Hematoma

Objectives

To evaluate the in-hospital and later outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B intramural hematoma (TBIMH) combined with an aberrant subclavian artery (aSCA).

Methods

In the period from January 2014 to December 2020, 12 patients diagnosed with TBIMH combined with aSCA and treated by TEVAR were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study, including 11 patients with the aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA) and 1 with an aberrant left subclavian artery (ALSA). A handmade fenestrated stent-graft or chimney stent or hybrid repair was performed when the proximal landing zone was not enough.

Results

The mean age of all the patients was 59.2 ± 7.6 years, and 66.7% of patients were men. There were 4 patients with Kommerell's diverticulum (KD). The procedures in all 12 patients were technically successful. There was one case each of postoperative delirium, renal impairment, and type IV endoleak after TEVAR. During follow-up, 1 patient died of acute pancreatitis 7 months after TEVAR. The overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years for the patients was 90.9, 90.9, and 90.9%, respectively. KD was excluded in 2 patients, and the handmade fenestrated stent-graft was applied in the other 2 patients to preserve the blood flow of the aSCA. No neurological complications developed and no progression of KD was observed during the follow-up.

Conclusion

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for patients with aSCA and TBIMH is promising. When KD was combined, we could exclude KD or preserve the blood flow of aSCA with regular follow-up for the diverticulum according to the size of the KD.

Mid-term outcomes of hybrid debranching endovascular aortic arch repair in landing zones 0-2

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to summarize a single-center experience of hybrid debranching endovascular repair of the aortic arch and proximal descending thoracic aorta (DTA) with regard to the mid-term outcomes with highlighting the difference between the landing zones 0-2.

METHODS

A retrospective review of data from a prospectively collected registry (Gangnam Severance Endovascular Aortic Registry) was performed. From among 332 patients whose aortic pathology was managed with TEVAR, 112 patients who underwent hybrid arch repair during the study period between 2012 and 2016 were identified. The patients were grouped into three cohorts according to the proximal landing zones (0, 1, and 2) of Ishimaru. The early outcome (30-days) in terms of mortality, morbidity, supra-aortic vessels patency, and presence of endoleak were analyzed. The survival, freedom from re-intervention, and major complications during follow-up were demonstrated.

RESULTS

During the study period. 112 patients (mean age 65±7, 79% males) were included. The patients were distributed in three cohorts: 8 (7%) patients with proximal landing zone 0, 20 (18%) with zone 1, and 80 (75%) with zone 2 hybrid aortic arch repair. Technical success was achieved in 7 (88%), 19 (90%), and 79 (94%) patients for zones 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was shorter in zone 2 (p = .005). The mean total hospital stay was shorter in zone 2 (p = .03). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 5% (4/112). There was no spinal cord ischemia or early surgical conversion. Renal function deterioration was seen more but not significantly in zone 0 patients (p = .08). Respiratory failure was seen significantly in zone 0 patients (p = .01). Stroke occurred in 6/44 (14%) patients with degenerative aneurysm versus 1/60 (2%) patients with aortic dissection (p =.06). Early CTA showed 100% patency of the supra-aortic vessels. The early endoleak rate was significant in zone 0 patients (p = .008). The mean follow-up period was (32±19 months). The survival rates and freedom from re-intervention were not statistically significant among the three zones. However, the survival rate and freedom from intervention tend to be higher in zone 2 versus zone 0 (p = .07 and .09), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid debranching endovascular aortic arch repair is feasible and relatively safe with acceptable mid-term outcomes. Zone 0 patients has worse early and late outcomes in comparison to other zones. Careful patient selection and improved endovascular technology may be the key to improve the outcomes.

Late Retrograde Aortic Dissection after Hybrid Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR): A Case Report

Open total arch replacement is allied to high rates of mortality and morbidity; surgeons, therefore, tend to choose hybrid aortic arch repair as a less invasive operative procedure for the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms, especially in high-risk patients. However, studies on the early and late outcomes of patients undergoing hybrid aortic arch repair have revealed high rates of reintervention and reoperation compared with open total arch replacement. Here, we describe a male patient with late retrograde aortic dissection after hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch aneurysms. The patient returned 3 years after the procedure with signs of dyspnea on exertion and chest pain. Transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography showed dissection of the ascending aorta, for which he underwent a redo Bentall procedure. The patient was weaned from cardiopulmonary bypass without any problem and discharged after 7 days.

Aortic arch debranching in hybrid thoracic aortic replacement

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the outcomes of aortic arch debranching in hybrid thoracic aortic replacement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 107 patients who underwent hybrid thoracic aortic repair with debranching of supra-aortic vessels between 2015 and 2021. Patients underwent total and partial debranching (subtotal debranching and subclavian-carotid anastomosis/bypass). Debranching was performed in patients with type 3 dissection, type B aneurysms, post-traumatic aortic isthmus and arch aneurysms, thoracoabdominal aneurysms type A and DeBakey type 1 dissections.

RESULTS

One patient (0.9%) died from thoracic aorta rupture after retrograde dissection. There was a moderate decrease of blood flow velocity through the left vertebral artery after subtotal debranching without severe hemodynamic disorders. Despite mild surgical trauma, subtotal and especially total debranching are characterized by higher risk of thrombosis of branches with potential fatal outcomes. In young patients requiring subtotal aortic arch debranching, open reconstruction or repair with fenestrated stents is preferred. We recommend a Bavaria type II hybrid procedure for patients with high surgical risk. In our opinion, more physiological hybrid interventions with anatomical arrangement of supra-aortic vessels such as Elephant Trunk and Frozen Elephant Trunk procedures are preferred.

Application of different types of hybrid aortic arch repair:Toward to solve dissection involving the aortic arch

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the outcomes and effectiveness of different types of hybrid aortic arch repair for aortic dissection involving the aortic arch.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2020, 168 patients underwent hybrid aortic arch repair for dissection involving the aortic arch. We collected data from our electronic medical records, including the presenting pathology, perioperative details, and postoperative outcomes. We included the following types of hybrid aortic arch repair: classic type I, type II, and type III hybrid aortic arch repair, as well as the new type IV hybrid aortic repair. We defined type IV hybrid aortic arch repair as revascularization of supra-aortic branches through extra-anatomy bypass without sternotomy, followed by stent-graft placement.

RESULTS

There were 23, 82, and 63 patients who underwent type I, type II, and type IV hybrid aortic arch repair, respectively. There were no type III hybrid aortic repairs performed. Forty-nine cases were performed urgently. The technical success rate was 99.4%. The early mortality rates of the total group, type I group, type II group, and type IV group were 6.5%, 4.3%, 8.5%, and 4.8%, respectively. Postoperative complications mainly included tracheotomy (8.9%), stroke (6%), wound infection (4.2%), renal insufficiency (8.9%), and endoleak (7.7%). With a mean follow-up of 45.1±28.5 months, the total 1-year and 5-year actual survival rates were 93.5% and 89.0%, respectively. At 6 months, the aortic diameter at the level of the diaphragm decreased significantly (30.8±4.9 mm vs 28.5±6.3 mm, p=0.012), and the rate of thrombosis of the false lumen at the level of pulmonary bifurcation and diaphragm were 95.7% and 83.1%. Ten patients underwent reintervention of the aorta, including 7 endovascular reinterventions, 2 total thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, and 1 open total arch replacement. For the total group, the free from aorta reintervention rate at 5 years was 91.4%.

CONCLUSION

Our results with hybrid aortic arch repair for aortic dissection involving the aortic arch are acceptable. The hybrid aortic arch repair could promote thrombosis of the distal false lumen while excluding intimal tears in the aortic arch.

Non-Standard Management of Target Vessels With the Inner Branch Arch Endograft: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate early and mid-term results of non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels with the use of the inner branch arch endograft in a single high-volume center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective study including all patients undergoing implantation of an inner branch arch endograft from December 2012 to March 2021, who presented a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels (any bypass other than a left carotid-subclavian or landing in a dissected target vessel). Technical success, mortality, reinterventions, endoleak (EL), and aortic remodeling at follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included. In 17 (71%) cases, the non-standard management was related to innominate artery (IA) compromise (12 with IA dissection, 2 with short IA, 2 with short proximal aortic landing zone that required occlusion of IA, 1 with occluded IA after open arch repair). Two (8%) cases were related to an aberrant right subclavian artery (RSA), 1 patient (4%) due to the concomitant presence of a left vertebral artery (LVA) arising from the arch and an occluded left subclavian artery (LSA), and another patient presented with an occluded LSA distal to a dominant vertebral artery. Three (13%) cases were exclusively related to management in patients with genetic aortic syndromes. Twenty (83%) patients had a previous type A aortic dissection. Ten (42%) patients presented a thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and 8 (33%) patients an arch aneurysm, 6 of them associated to false lumen (FL) perfusion. There were 2 (8%) perioperative minor strokes, and 1 patient with perioperative mortality. Seven patients presented an early type I endoleak, all resolved at follow-up. Seven patients required reinterventions during follow-up (7 reinterventions related to continuous false lumen perfusion, 3 related to Type Ia endoleak, 2 related to surgical bypass). All patients who presented with FL perfusion had complete FL thrombosis at follow-up. No patient presented aneurysm growth at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the inner branch arch endograft with a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels is a possible option. Despite a high reintervention rate, regression or stability of the aneurysmal diameter was achieved in all the patients with follow-up.

Comparison of Prognosis Between Hybrid Debranching Surgery and Total Open Arch Replacement With Frozen Elephant Trunk for Type A Acute Aortic Syndrome Patients

Background: It is unclear whether the total arch replacement (TAR) combined with frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation and hybrid debranching surgery have a difference in the prognosis of patients with type A acute aortic syndrome (AAS). We attempted to compare the short-term and long-term prognosis of total arch replacement (TAR) combined with frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation and hybrid debranching surgery in patients with type A acute aortic syndrome (AAS).

Methods: From January 2014 to September 2020, a total of 518 patients who underwent TAR with FET surgery and 31 patients who underwent hybrid surgery were included. We analyzed the post-operative mortality and morbidity of complications of the two surgical methods, and we determined 67 patients for subgroup analysis through a 1:2 propensity score match (PSM). We identified risk factors for patient mortality and post-operative neurological complications through multivariate regression analysis.

Results: Compared with the TAR with FET group, hybrid surgery could reduce aortic cross-clamp time, reduce intraoperative blood loss and prevent some patients from cardiopulmonary bypass. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the TAR with FET group and the hybrid surgery group (10.6 vs. 9.7%). However, hybrid surgery had increased the incidence of permanent neurological complications in patients (95%CI: 4.7–35.7%, P = 0.001), especially post-operative cerebral infarction (P < 0.001). During the average follow-up period of 31.6 months, there was no significant difference in the 1-year survival rate and 3-year survival rate between the TAR with FET group and the hybrid surgery group (P = 0.811), but hybrid surgery increased the incidence of long-term neurological complications (P < 0.001). In multivariate regression analysis, surgical methods were not a risk factor for post-operative deaths, but hybrid surgery was a risk factor for post-operative neurological complications (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Hybrid surgery is an acceptable treatment for AAS, and its post-operative mortality is similar to FET. But hybrid surgery may increase the risk of permanent neurological complications after surgery, and this risk must be carefully considered when choosing hybrid surgery.

Hybrid repair of aortic arch with zone zero endografting-Case series with review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

We present single-institution results of types I and II hybrid procedures for aortic arch disease with 30-day and long-term results and review of the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all patients that underwent zone 0 endografting and open bypass from ascending aorta to the arch vessels at our institution between January 2013 and 2020. The following data for the systematic review were extracted from eligible studies: 30-day/in-hospital mortality, stroke rate, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) rate, renal failure requiring dialysis, development of retrograde dissection, early (<30 days) types I and III endoleak, follow-up length, late (>30 days) endoleak, and late (>30 days) mortality.

RESULTS

Twelve patients underwent hybrid aortic arch treatment in our institution. The most common aortic arch pathology was degenerative aortic aneurysm. The rate of retrograde dissection and SCI was 8.33%. Regarding the literature data, a total of 768 patients undergoing types I and II hybrid aortic arch debranching procedure. The pooled rate of 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 10.96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.21-14.06), SCI pooled rate was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.76%-4.33%), and retrograde dissection pooled rate was 3.22% (95% CI, 1.99-4.72).

CONCLUSION

Hybrid arch techniques provide safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short- and midterm results.

Midterm outcomes of fenestrated TEVAR using physician-modified endovascular grafts for zone 2

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the experience and midterm outcomes of physician-modified endovascular grafts for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of 51 consecutive patients (mean age 57.6 ± 12.5 years, 39 males) treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair using physician-modified endovascular grafts for reconstructing the left subclavian artery from November 2015 to December 2019. The primary endpoints during follow-up were the overall mortality, aorta-related mortality, and major complications. The secondary endpoints were reintervention and the patency of the target branches, the demographics and technical details were also described and analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three thoracic stent-grafts were deployed in 51 patients and emergency surgery was performed in 10 patients (19.6%). Technical success was 94.1% (48/51). The incidence of perioperative complications was 15.7%, and the 30-day mortality was 0%. At a mean follow-up of 42.0 ± 14.4 months (range, 14-63 months), all the left subclavian arteries remained patent. All-cause mortality was 3.9% (2/51) and not aorta-related deaths. Estimated survival at one and three years was 98.0 ± 1.9% and 96.0 ± 2.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The physician-modified endovascular grafts is feasible and effective to preserve left subclavian artery in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch pathologies with unhealthy proximal landing zone.

Endovascular Treatment of Post Type A Chronic Aortic Arch Dissection With a Branched Endograft: Early Results From a Retrospective International Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of endovascular aortic arch repair for chronic dissection with a custom-made branched endograft.

BACKGROUND

Acute type A aortic dissections are often treated with prosthetic replacement of the ascending aorta. During follow-up, repair of an aneurysmal evolution of the false lumen distal to the ascending prosthesis can be a challenge both for the surgeon and the patient.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of consecutive patients from 14 vascular units treated with a custom-made, inner-branched device (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for chronic aortic arch dissection. Rates of in-hospital mortality and stroke, technical success, early and late complications, reinterventions, and mortality during follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy consecutive patients were treated between 2011 and 2018. All patients were considered unfit for conventional surgery. In-hospital combined mortality and stroke rate was 4% (n = 3), including 1 minor stroke, 1 major stroke causing death, and 1 death following multiorgan failure. Technical success rate was 94.3%. Twelve (17.1%) patients required early reinterventions: 8 for vascular access complication, 2 for endoleak correction, and 2 for pericardial effusion drainage. Median follow-up was 301 (138-642) days. During follow-up, 20 (29%) patients underwent secondary interventions: 9 endoleak corrections, 1 open repair for prosthetic kink, and 10 distal extensions of the graft to the thoracic or thoracoabdominal aorta. Eight patients (11%) died during follow-up because of nonaortic-related cause in 7 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment of aortic arch chronic dissections with a branched endograft is associated with low mortality and stroke rates but has a high reintervention rate. Further follow-up is required to confirm the benefits of this novel approach.

Four-year results of the Bolton relay proximal scallop endograft in the management of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic pathology with unfavorable proximal landing zone

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with a scallop design (scallop-TEVAR) is a useful treatment strategy to extend the proximal landing zone (PLZ), while maintaining perfusion to one or more of the supra-aortic trunks (SATs) when treating aortic pathology with an unfavorable PLZ. The durability of this approach with the Bolton Relay scallop endograft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, Fla) has not been established.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients that received scallop-TEVAR in zones 0 to 2 at a tertiary aortic unit was undertaken. The main outcome was durability, characterized by survival estimates, freedom from reintervention to the thoracic aorta and PLZ, migration and aneurysm sac regression.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2019, 38 patients (71% male; median age, 70 years) underwent scallop-TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathology (n = 28, 74%) or as a part of thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair (n = 10 [26%]). The use of scallop-TEVAR significantly extended the PLZ (median, 5 mm preoperative PLZ vs 26 mm extended PLZ; P = .0001). A total of 41 SATs were perfused with a scallop, including the left subclavian artery (n = 25), left common carotid artery (n = 6), neo/innominate artery (n = 4), left subclavian artery, and vertebral artery (n = 1), innominate artery, and left common carotid artery (n = 2) in conjunction with 15 extra-anatomical bypasses. The PLZ was at Ishimaru zone 0 and 1 in 6 cases (16%), respectively, and zone 2 in 26 cases (68%). Technical success was 98%. The 30-day mortality was 5% (2/38; 1 death from myocardial infarction and 1 from multiorgan failure). A minor stroke occurred in three patients (8%) and temporary spinal cord ischemia in two patients (5%). The median follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 0-10.53 years) during which two patients (5%) developed type Ia endoleak and required intervention to the PLZ (one from device-related migration and one from disease progression). All-cause and aorta-related survival were 72% and 85% and freedom from thoracic and PLZ reintervention was 92% and 97%, respectively. There were no cases of early or late thoracic aortic rupture, retrograde type A aortic dissection or SAT occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Scallop-TEVAR offers a less invasive treatment option to extend the seal zone in selected patients with an unfavorable PLZ, allowing for a durable repair in terms of overall survival and reintervention. Periprocedural stroke remains a principle concern.

Analysis of clinical outcomes of one-staged hybrid procedure without thoracotomy for aorta lesion involving distal aortic arch

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of one-staged hybrid procedure for aortic lesions involving the distal aortic arch.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 99 consecutive patients who underwent the hybrid procedure (thoracic endovascular aortic repair combined with supra-arch branch vessel bypass) in our center between April 2009 and January 2020 for lesions involving the distal aortic arch.

RESULTS

Median age was 64.0 (57.0-69.0) years, and 83 (83.8%) patients were male. There were five deaths in the perioperative period (three due to cerebral infarction and two due to intimal rupture). During the median follow-up of 41.0 months, 20 patients died, three had endoleak, one had a newly formed intimal tear, and two had femoral artery pseudoaneurysm. The 5- and 10-year survival rates of the total population were 72.2% and 48.8%, respectively. Additionally, there was no difference in the 5-year survival rate among the four groups according to different pathologies (Type B aortic dissection, aortic ulcer, aortic aneurysm, aortic pseudoaneurysm: 74.7%, 78.2%, 61.1%, and 75.5%, respectively, p = .58). Furthermore, there was no difference in the 5- and 10-year survival rates between the two groups according to the different bypass methods (right axillary artery [RAA]-left axillary artery [LAA] vs. RAA-LAA-left common carotid artery: 74.1% vs. 68.9%, p = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

Although one-staged hybrid procedure has fewer complications in high-risk patients with lesions involving the distal aortic arch, the long-term survival rate is not optimistic.

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

Background

This study analyzes the outcomes of a one-stage hybrid procedure combining thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with extra-anatomic bypass in patients with distal aortic arch disease.

Methods

This retrospective study collected 103 hybrid procedures combining TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass (mean age, 62.2±9.3 years; 90 males) performed from January 2009 to January 2019 at Beijing Anzhen Hospital. We analyzed 30-day and mid-term outcomes including survival rate and the incidence of stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), and endoleak.

Results

Five deaths (4.6%) occurred within 30 days, including type I endoleak in Zone 1 (n=1), hemorrhagic shock (n=1), stroke (n=2), and stent migration (n=1). Two patients developed SCI. The median follow-up time was 39.5 (interquartile range, 13.6-69.0) months. In all, 14 late deaths occurred; these were due to stroke (n=2), severe pneumonia (n=1), aortic rupture caused by type I endoleak (n=3), and sudden death (n=8). Six late endoleaks occurred including three type I and one type II in Zone 1 and two type I in Zone 2. In a competing risks analysis, the incidences of reintervention at 7 years, late death, and survival without reintervention were 8%, 22%, and 70%, respectively. In a Cox risk model, stroke (HR, 21.602; 95% CI: 2.798–166.796; P=0.003) was the only risk factor for 30-day mortality. Stroke (HR, 19.484; 95% CI: 5.245–72.380; P<0.001), SCI (HR, 15.548; 95% CI: 2.754–87.786; P=0.002), and endoleak (HR, 4.626; 95% CI: 1.068–20.040; P=0.041) were independent risk factors for long-term mortality.

Conclusions

The one-stage hybrid procedure provides acceptable mid-term results with good mid-term patency of extra-anatomic bypass. Strict selection of patients suitable for hybrid repair can effectively improve the survival rate and reduce the incidence of complications. At the same time, close follow-up patients should receive close long-term follow-up after hybrid procedure.

Prevention of Retrograde Ascending Aortic Dissection by Cardiac Pacing During Hybrid Surgery for Zone 0 Aortic Arch Repair

BACKGROUND

Retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) after zone 0 hybrid aortic arch repair is highly lethal and not infrequent complication. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of rapid cardiac pacing as an adjunctive tool to prevent RTAD during or after hybrid procedures for zone 0 disease.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 42 consecutive patients with zone 0 hybrid aortic arch repair between November 2004 and January 2018. Right ventricular pacing was carried out through unipolar electrodes attached to the epicardium of the right ventricle through the sternotomy (the indifferent electrode was in the subcutaneous tissue). Pacing was utilised during the clamping of the ascending aorta, release of the aortic clamp, and stent-graft deployment.

RESULTS

Operative indications were aortic arch aneurysm 45% (n = 19), aortic arch dissection 45% (n = 19), traumatic rupture of isthmus 7% (n = 3), and type IA endoleak 2% (n = 1). Urgent procedures 48% (n = 20). The mean proximal aortic diameter was 34.14 ± 2.9 mm. Mean stent-graft oversizing was 12.97 ± 3.4%. The 30-day mortality rate was 14% (n = 6). RTAD was observed in 7% (n = 3). The actuarial survival rate was 74% over a mean follow-up of 50 ± 30.2 months. Since January 2013, rapid right ventricular pacing (overdrive pacing at a rate of 200 beats/min) was systematically used (n = 24). No RTAD was observed in this group of patients. Rapid right ventricular pacing reduced significatively the risk of RTAD (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid right ventricular pacing is an effective method of inducing hypotension and appears to decrease the risk of retrograde type A dissection after zone 0 hybrid aortic arch repair.

Preliminary results of spot-stent grafting in Stanford type B aortic dissection and intramural haematoma

OBJECTIVES

METHODS

Patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute/subacute aortic dissection Stanford type B/intramural haematoma Stanford type B between 1997 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database. In a total of 183 cases, 22 patients (7 women; median age 62 years; range 35–79 years) received SSG. The primary study end point was technical success. The primary morphological end point was false lumen thrombosis/aortic remodelling. Secondary end points were TEVAR-related mortality/morbidity and reinterventions. The median follow-up was 28.5 months (5 days–15.6 years).

RESULTS

The primary technical success rate was 100% (22/22). During follow-up, false lumen thrombosis was seen in 21 patients (95.5%) at a median of 6 days (0 days to 2.7 years) after the index procedure (limited/extended false lumen thrombosis: n = 9 vs 12). Aortic remodelling was achieved in 15 of 22 patients (68.2%) at a median of 360 days (3 days to 7.2 years). Limited/extended remodelling was observed in 8/15 and 7/15, respectively. Retrograde dissection or stent graft-induced new entry was not observed. No stroke or spinal cord injury occurred. Reinterventions were performed in 4/22 cases. The in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were 0%. Overall mortality during the follow-up period was 22.7% (5/22).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows favourable technical and morphological results for SSG in selected patients with acute/subacute aortic dissection Stanford type B/intramural haematoma Stanford type B. Patient allocation to SSG remains individual. Prospective large-scale long-term data may allow refinement of the application.

Homemade Fenestrated Stent-Grafts for Complete Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Dissections

Purpose: To evaluate outcomes of homemade fenestrated stent-grafts for complete endovascular aortic repair of aortic arch dissections. Materials and Methods: From July 2014 through September 2018, 35 patients (mean age 66±11 years; 25 men) underwent homemade fenestrated stent-graft repair of acute (n=16) or chronic (n=10) complicated type B aortic dissections (n=16) and dissecting aortic arch aneurysms subsequent to surgical treatment of acute type A dissections (n=9). Nineteen (54%) procedures were emergent. Results: Zone 2 single-fenestrated stent-grafts were used in 25 cases; the remaining 10 were double-fenestrated stent-grafts deployed in zone 0. Median time for stent-graft modification was 18 minutes (range 16–20). Technical success was achieved in all cases. An immediate distal type I endoleak was treated intraoperatively. Among the double-fenestrated stent-graft cases, the left subclavian artery fenestration could not be cannulated in 2 patients and revascularization was required. Partial coverage of the left common carotid artery necessitated placement of a covered stent in 3 cases. One (3%) patient had a stroke without permanent sequelae. Two type II endoleaks required additional covered stent placement at 5 and 7 days postoperatively, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 6% (2 patients with ruptured aortic arch aneurysm). During a mean follow-up of 17.6±13 months, there was no aortic rupture or retrograde dissection. One late type I endoleak was treated with additional proximal fenestrated stent-graft placement. One type II endoleak is currently under observation. One additional patient died (unrelated to the aorta); overall mortality was 9%. All supra-aortic trunks were patent. Conclusion: The use of homemade fenestrated stent-grafts for endovascular repair of aortic arch dissections is feasible and effective for total endovascular aortic arch repair. Durability concerns will need to be assessed in additional studies with long-term follow-up.

Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Repair for Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection with Aberrant Right Subclavian Artery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of endovascular repair of Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) with an aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From November 2012 to July 2018, 15 patients (13 male, 2 female) who had TBAD with ARSA underwent total endovascular repair, including thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), left subclavian artery (LSA) chimney technique, LSA fenestration technique, and double chimney technique (LSA chimney and ARSA periscope). The mean age was 55 years. Kommerell diverticulum (KD) occurred in 2 patients, which were covered by means of oversized aortic stents. All patients had preoperative imaging examinations for assessing cerebral blood flow and the dominant vertebral arteries.

RESULTS

All procedures were completed successfully. There was no in-hospital mortality. The mean procedural time was 98 ± 40 minutes (range 50-190). The mean preoperative diameters of the maximum descending aorta, false lumen, and true lumen in the descending aorta versus postoperative were 37 ± 10 mm (range 28-67), 18 ± 9 mm (range 9-41), and 19 ± 6 mm (range 10-35) versus 34 ± 9 mm (range 25-64), 5 ± 8 mm (range 0-28), and 28 ± 5 mm (range 19-37), respectively. Right upper extremity weakness was observed in 2 patients, which recovered gradually during follow-up. Immediate type Ia endoleak was detected in 1 patient. The mean follow-up time was 33 ± 20 months. During follow-up, no ARSA steal syndrome, spinal cord ischemia, or strokes were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment for TBAD with ARSA was feasible and safe with a satisfactory midterm follow-up outcome.

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.

Hybrid Repair of a Saccular Aortic Arch Aneurysm Ruptured in the Left Pulmonary Bronchus

The rupture of aortic arch aneurysm is rare but serious and a life-threatening pathologic condition. We report a case of an 80-year-old woman who was admitted to our department for a rupture of a saccular aortic arch aneurysm in the left pulmonary bronchus. There was no landing zone in the aortic arch. First, we performed a total supra-aortic debranching and a bifurcated graft bypass from the ascending aorta to both the innominate artery and the left carotid artery. Then, we implanted in the aortic arch an endoprosthesis covering the origin of all supra-aortic trunks. Final angiography was satisfactory. The patient died 8 days later due to pulmonary-originated septic shock. Aortic arch hybrid procedures show a variety of severe complications associated with a relevant morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rate. Prognosis of rupture depends not only on the hemorrhage caused but also on the potential infection.

Neurologic Outcomes in Aortic Arch Repair With Frozen Elephant Trunk Versus 2-Stage Hybrid Repair

BACKGROUND

We compared outcomes of single-stage hybrid aortic arch replacement (frozen elephant trunk) versus 2-stage hybrid repairs with primary open arch procedures followed by thoracic endovascular stenting.

METHODS

This study reports a single-center retrospective review (2003 to 2016) of 118 patients undergoing hybrid repair of the aortic arch including 48 single-stage repairs versus 70 two-stage repairs.

RESULTS

Single-stage repair was performed in 48 patients, including 31 (64.6%) men and 17 (35.4%) women with a mean age of 64 ± 11 years and a 2-stage procedure was performed in 70 patients, including 42 (60%) men and 28 (40%) women with a mean age of 65.67 ± 13.3 years (p = 0.46). More emergent single-stage procedures were performed in 23 of 48 (47.9%) patients versus 2-stage procedures in 8 of 70 (11.43%) patients (p < 0.001). Between the single- and 2-stage groups, there was no difference in stroke (6.25% [3 of 48] versus 14.28% [10 of 70]; p = 0.23), spinal cord ischemia (4.16% [2 of 48] versus 5.7% [4 of 70]; p = 1.0), or 30-day mortality rate: 8 of 48 (16.7%) patients versus a combined 30-day mortality rate of the 2-stage procedure of 14.8% (4 of 70 [5.7%] at the first stage and 5 of 55 [9.1%] at the second stage; p = 0.56), respectively. After exclusion of the 30-day mortality, midterm survival was 86% at 1 to 2 years for single-stage patients versus 80% at 1 year and 46% at 2 years for the 2-stage patients (p = 0.0019).

CONCLUSIONS

Both single-stage and 2-stage hybrid arch replacements are effective approaches for treating complex aortic arch diseases. Early deaths and neurological outcomes in the single-stage group are comparable to those in the combined 2-stage group. Furthermore, in this series, patients who had a single-stage hybrid procedure had a higher survival rate at 2 years.

Fenestrated Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Physician-Modified Stent Grafts (PMSGs) in Zone 0 and Zone 1 for Aortic Arch Diseases

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f-TEVAR) using physician-modified stent grafts (PMSGs) in zone 0 and zone 1 for aortic arch diseases.

METHODS

f-TEVAR using PMSGs in Z0 and Z1 was performed on ten high-risk patients for open surgery from November 2015 to September 2017. Indications were complicated acute type B dissection (ABAD) with retrograde dissection involving the mid-arch (n = 1), distal arch aneurysms (n = 3), mid-arch aneurysms of the inner arch curvature (n = 3) and penetrating aortic ulcer located in the mid- or proximal arch (n = 3). Pre-, intra- and postoperative clinical data were recorded.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 61 (range 45-81) years, and 9 (90%) patients were men. Ten PMSGs (Medtronic Valiant stent grafts, n = 1; Relay thoracic stent grafts, n = 4; Cook TX2 device, n = 5) were deployed. PMSGs were deployed from Z0 and Z1 in 5 and 5 patients, respectively. Double small fenestrations for the left subclavian artery (LSA) and the left common carotid artery (LCCA), respectively, were created in 3 patients. Triple small fenestrations for the innominate artery (IA), the LCCA and the LSA, respectively, were created in 2 patients. One large fenestration for both the IA and the LCCA combined with one small fenestration for the LSA was created in 3 patients. One large fenestration for the LCCA combined with one small fenestration for the LSA was created in 2 patients. Posterior diameter-reducing ties were added to all the devices except to one Valiant stent graft. All but 2 patients underwent elective procedure. Median duration for stent graft modifications was 105 (range 90-125) min. The technical success rate was 90%. Overall mortality was 10% (1/10). One patient died of sudden cardiac arrest intraoperatively after the deployment of the PMSG and all the supra-aortic branch stents. Mean operative time was 106.0 ± 43.0 min, and fluoroscopy time was 30.6 ± 22.9 min. There were no type I or type III endoleaks, perioperative neurological complications or spinal cord ischemia. Median length of stay was 8 (range 4-35) days. Nine patients survived at mean 13.3 (range 6.0-19.0) months follow-up. Retrograde dissection occurred in one patient of Z0 group 40 days post-f-TEVAR and resolved after open repair. During follow-up, all target vessels remained patent without fenestration-related type I or III endoleaks.

CONCLUSIONS

f-TEVAR using PMSGs in Z0 and Z1 for the treatment of aortic arch diseases in high-risk patients is feasible in the hands of experienced operators.

Comparison of open surgical versus hybrid endovascular repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms with distal arch involvement

Background

Our aim was to compare the efficacies of conventional open thoracotomy and hybrid endovascular technique in patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms involving the distal arch.

Methods

Between January 2005 and December 2015, 125 consecutive patients with descending aneurysms involving distal arch underwent open repair via thoracotomy (n=79) or zone 1/2 hybrid endovascular repair (n=46). Surgeries entailing total arch replacement by elephant trunk technique (with sternotomy) and Zone 0 hybrid arch repairs were excluded. Early and late outcomes were compared using propensity scores and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW).

Results

In-hospital mortality rates for open repair (10.1%) and hybrid repair (6.5%) did not differ significantly (P=0.49). Major adverse outcomes included stroke (11.4% vs. 8.7%), paraplegia (2.5% vs. 0.0%) and lung complications (19.0% vs. 6.5%). Once adjusted by IPTW, hospital mortality risk for conventional open repair (OR =4.396; P=0.086) tended to be higher, and there was significant risk of lung complications (OR =4.372; P=0.025). However, both techniques were similar in terms of 30-day mortality (OR =2.745; P=0.257), stroke (OR =2.134; P=0.217), paraplegia (OR =3.639; P=0.407), and midterm survival (OR =1.05; P=0.90). Freedom from reintervention at 10 years was significantly better for open repair (85.2%±7.1%) compared with the hybrid approach (46.3%±11.0%; OR =0.13; P<0.01).

Conclusions

Hybrid arch repair conferred a significantly lower incidence of pulmonary complications, without benefitting perioperative mortality and stroke. However, open repair proved more reliable, showing greater durability. Long-term investigations are needed to confirm the viability and safety of hybrid repair as an alternative treatment in this setting.

Salvage Procedure Using a Chimney Endograft for Early Cerebral Ischaemia after Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair of a Primary Aorto-bronchial Fistula

Introduction

Hybrid aortic arch repair for the treatment of aorto-bronchial fistulas has been suggested as a safe alternative to open repair. However, surgical morbidity and mortality are still significant and re-intervention is sometimes inevitable.

Report

Successful rescue by a hybrid approach is reported in a 76 year old woman who was transferred from another centre with recurrent episodes of left hemiplegia shortly after debranching of the supra-aortic vessels and thoracic aortic stent grafting for an aorto-bronchial fistula associated with a true aneurysm at the level of origin of the left subclavian artery. Investigation revealed partial coverage of the ostium of the brachiocephalic artery and Type Ib and II endoleaks. In the first stage a chimney graft was put into the brachiocephalic trunk, and in the second stage the left subclavian artery was plugged and the thoracic stent graft was extended distally. Completion angiography showed restoration of the supra-aortic blood flow and no residual endoleaks. After 1 year follow up the patient was doing well with no recurrent neurological events and no signs of infection.

Discussion

Procedure related problems should be suspected first when early post-operative complications occur after a hybrid aortic arch repair. The chimney graft technique is a valuable option for unintentional covering of a critical supra-aortic branch. Nevertheless, the importance of precise positioning during initial thoracic stent graft placement should be emphasised.

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.

Zone zero hybrid arch exclusion versus open total arch replacement

Open total aortic arch replacement is one of the most technically demanding operations in cardiothoracic surgery, requiring operator expertise and intraoperative and postoperative teamwork. Despite current advancements in the field of open aortic surgery with regard to intraoperative brain protection and postoperative care, the morbidity and mortality associated with open total arch operations varies. Endovascular and hybrid procedures involving the use of zone 0 as a landing zone allow fair comparison between open total arch and hybrid operations. Hybrid procedures involving all of the other landing zones [1-4] should not be compared with open total arch replacement, as the extent of the pathology is different.

Open repair techniques in the aortic arch are still superior

Conventional arch replacement can be carried out in a great majority of patients. Hybrid procedures are often as invasive and technically difficult as conventional ones. Moreover, their immediate results are, in many reported experiences, not better and their long-term results less favourable than the ones observed with conventional methods. So, yes, the open conventional arch replacement is still "the gold standard".