Early and mid-term outcomes of endovascular and open surgical repair of non-dissected aortic arch aneurysm†

The outcomes of aortic arch repair between open surgical repair and debranching endovascular hybrid surgical repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At present, open surgical aortic arch repair (OAR) and debranching hybrid surgical aortic arch repair (HAR) serve as significant therapeutic approaches for aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. It remains unclear which technique is preferable. Our study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of these two procedures.

METHODS

To identify comparison studies of debranching HAR and OAR, a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed from January 2002 to April 2022. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020218080).

RESULTS

Sixteen publications (1316 patients), including six propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis papers, were included in this study. Compared with the HAR group, the patients who underwent OAR were younger (OAR vs HAR: 67.53 ± 12.81 vs 71.29 ± 11.0; P < .00001), had less coronary artery disease (OAR vs HAR: 22.45% vs 32.6%; P = .007), less chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OAR vs HAR: 16.16% vs 23.92%; P = .001), lower rates of previous stroke (OAR vs HAR: 12.46% vs 18.02%; P = .05), and a lower EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) score (OAR vs HAR: 6.27 ± 1.04 vs 6.9 ± 3.76; P < .00001). HAR was associated with less postoperative blood transfusion (OAR vs HAR: 12.23% vs 7.91%; P = .04), shorter length of intensive care unit stays (OAR vs HAR: 5.92 ± 7.58 days vs 4.02 ± 6.60 days; P < .00001) and hospital stays (OAR vs HAR: 21.59 ± 17.54 days vs 16.49 ± 18.45 days; P < .0001), lower incidence of reoperation for bleeding complications (OAR vs HAR: 8.07% vs 3.96%; P = .01), fewer postoperative pulmonary complication (OAR vs HAR: 14.75% vs 5.02%; P < .0001), and acute renal failure (OAR vs HAR: 7.54% vs 5.17%; P = .03). In the PSM subgroup, the rates of spinal cord ischemic (OAR vs HAR: 5.75% vs 11.49%; P = .02), stroke (OAR vs HAR: 5.1% vs 17.35%; P = .01), and permanent paraplegia (OAR vs HAR: 2.79% vs 6.08%; P = .006) were lower in the OAR group than that in the HAR group. Although there was no statistically significant difference in 1-year survival rates (HAR vs OAR: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.54; P = .10), the 3-year and 5-year survivals were significantly higher in the OAR group than that in the HAR group (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.69; P = .01; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.68; P = .01). In the PSM subgroup, the OAR group was also significantly superior to the HAR group in terms of 3-year and 5-year survivals (HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.73; P = .04; HAR vs OAR: HR: 1.67; P = .04). The reintervention rate in the HAR group was significantly higher than that in the OAR group (OAR vs HAR: 8.24% vs 16.01%; P = .01). The most common reintervention was postoperative bleeding (8.07%) in the OAR group and endoleak (9.67%) in the HAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that debranching HAR was associated with fewer perioperative complications than the OAR group, except for postoperative permanent paraplegia, reintervention, and stroke events. The OAR group demonstrated better 3-year and 5-year survivals than the debranching HAR group. However, patients in the OAR group had fewer comorbid factors and were younger than those in the HAR group. High-quality studies and well-powered randomized trials are needed to further evaluate this evolving field.

Parallel grafts and physician modified endografts for endovascular repair of the aortic arch

Aortic arch aneurysms are a challenging clinical problem especially in high-risk patients. Open aortic arch replacement, even in the best of centers, carries significant risk of stroke or death in this high-risk population. Many high-risk patients are deemed inoperable and not offered repair. Branched and fenestrated thoracic endografts are currently undergoing clinical trials in the United States but are not yet commercially available. Many elderly and frail patients have significant brachiocephalic occlusive disease or anatomy excluding them for consideration for such clinical trials. These patients also present with acute aortic syndromes requiring urgent or emergent repair and are unable to participate in clinical trials due to the time required to have such devices available. Alternative endovascular therapies, including parallel stent grafts (including Chimneys, Snorkels and Periscopes) and physician modified thoracic endografts, have been used to treat such high-risk patients combined with commercially available thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) devices. This paper aims to review the techniques and current reported outcomes from parallel stent grafts and physician modified devices used to treat high risk patients undergoing repair for aortic arch pathologies.

Effectiveness of endovascular versus open surgical repair for thoracic aortic aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Since the approval, the TEVAR is widely used for the repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm. However, the long-term mortality and re-intervention rates compared to OSR are unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of the thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with open surgical repair (OSR) specifically for thoracic aortic aneurysms.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PROSPERO, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2020. The main outcomes were early mortality, mid-to-long-term survival, and re-intervention. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. All analyses were performed using RevMan with the random effect model and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

One systematic review and 15 individual studies were included. Pooled analysis showed that 30-day mortality, stroke, renal failure, and pulmonary complications were significantly lower in TEVAR vs. open surgery. The pooled rate of re-intervention significantly favored the OSR. The long-term survival and mortality favored TEVAR and OSR in one and two studies, respectively, but was non-significant in 7 analyzes.

CONCLUSIONS

Early clinical outcomes including the 30-day mortality, stroke, renal failure, and pulmonary complications significantly favored the TEVAR. However, the mid-to-long-term re-intervention rate favored the OSR and long-term survival was inconsistent among the studies. The quality of evidence was very low. More studies with longer follow-ups are needed. The use of TEVAR should be decided by taking into account other factors including patient characteristics and preferences, cost, and surgeon expertise.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.

A New Aortic Arch Inclusion Technique with Frozen Elephant Trunk for Aortic Arch Aneurysm Treatment

Various surgical techniques have been proposed for treating aortic arch aneurysm (AAA); however, the optimal treatment has not been well defined. This study introduces a new aortic arch inclusion technique with frozen elephant trunk (FET) for AAA treatment.A retrospective analysis was performed among 22 patients for AAA surgical treatment between March 2010 and March 2019. Patients were classified into Z1, Z2, and Z3 groups based on the origins of aneurysms. A stent graft with a 10 cm stented graft and 5-9 cm proximal vascular prosthesis was released into the descending thoracic aorta as FET through an incision in the aortic arch. The proximal vascular prosthesis was retracted into the aortic arch, trimmed to expose the orifices of the brachiocephalic vessels, and sutured inside the aortic arch using the inclusion technique. The proximal sealing location of the vascular graft was tailored to cover the origins of aneurysms.There was no 30-day mortality. No patient had postoperative stroke or paraplegia. Complete aneurysm thrombosis was achieved in all patients. One patient died of severe respiratory tract stenosis 3 months postoperatively. All other 21 patients were alive during 53.3 ± 36.5-month follow-up. Computed tomography angiography was obtained in 15 patients during follow-up. Endoleak was observed in one patient, and the other 14 patients were free from aneurysm-related or graft-related complications during follow-up.The aortic arch inclusion technique with FET provides an alternative technique in treating AAA with satisfactory mid-term follow-up results. A larger patient population with long-term follow-up results is warranted.

Various Endoluminal Approaches Available for Treating Pathologies of the Aortic Arch

Open surgical repair of the aortic arch for degenerative aortic disease in an unfit patient is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoluminal techniques have advanced over the last decade. Contemporary endovascular options including a hybrid approach (supra-aortic debranching and aortic stent graft), inner branched endograft, chimney stents, and scallop or fenestrated endografts are being used frequently as an alternative to open surgical arch repair. Understanding of the available endoluminal technology along with careful planning and effective teamwork is required to minimise complications associated with the endoluminal techniques, particularly neurological ones. Custom made techniques are superior to chimney or parallel technology in terms of their complications and durability. Integration of the protective devices such as embolic protection filters into stent design may reduce the risk of poor neurological sequelae. Long-term data are needed to assess the durability of these devices.

Effect of endoprostheses on pulse wave velocity and its long-term outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the changes in pulse wave velocity and left ventricular dimensions in patients undergoing stent-graft treatment for aortic arch aneurysm.

METHODS

From July 2008 to February 2019, 86 patients underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair of an aortic arch aneurysm. Changes in pulse wave velocity (PWV), echocardiogram findings, and long-term outcomes were compared between endoskeleton type (n = 60) and exoskeleton type stent-graft (n = 26).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in patient demographics except for diabetes which was more observed in endoskeleton type (p = 0.017). There was a significant increase in PWV in exoskeleton type after surgery, which further progressed at a median follow-up of 32 months (before: 2047 cm/s vs. after: 2259 cm/s vs. follow-up: 2486 cm/s, p = 0.010, p = 0.017). No significant difference was observed in endoskeleton type (before: 1980 cm/s vs. after: 2058 cm/s, vs. follow-up: 2042 cm/s, p = 0.25, p = 0.34). Echocardiogram performed at a median period of 46.3 months, revealed a significant increase in left ventricular diastolic volume (LVDV) (before: 107.4 ± 20.6 ml vs. follow-up: 127.7 ± 27.5 ml, p = 0.003) and decrease in e' (before: 5.5 ± 1.78 cm/s vs. follow-up: 4.7 ± 1.72 cm/s, p = 0.012) in exoskeleton type, while no significant change was observed in endoskeleton type (LVDV: before: 102.6 ± 32.3 ml vs. follow-up: 96.9 ± 35.4 ml, p = 0.74; e': before: 4.4 ± 1.21 cm/s vs. follow-up: 4.8 ± 1.40 cm/s, p = 0.68). At the median period of 61.3 months, there was no significant difference in long-term mortality (p = 0.89). However, the endoskeleton type was associated with a lower incidence of a cardiac event (p = 0.034) and cerebrovascular event (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Types of endoprosthesis might affect differently on physiological changes and its accommodated risk factors after surgery.

Survival and cause of death after aortic arch aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify differences in prognosis, causes of death, and outcomes between open and endovascular repair for aortic arch aneurysms.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the survival status and causes of death determined from the medical records of 124 consecutive elderly patients (age>70 years) with aortic arch aneurysms that were treated between 2010 and 2018 at our hospital. Forty patients (male, N.=30; mean age, 76 years) underwent open repair and 84 (male, N.=68; mean age, 78 years) underwent endovascular repair.

RESULTS

Early postoperative complications (10.0% vs. 6.3%; P=0.4) and rates of in-hospital death (2.5% vs. 6.3%; P=0.2) did not significantly differ between open and endovascular repair. Cumulative long-term and event free survival rates at eight years were similar in both groups (78.7% vs. 66.3%, P=0.1 and 66.6% vs. 58.4%; P=0.4, respectively). The causes of death at follow-up after endovascular repair comprised malignancies in 11 (52.4%) patients and cardiopulmonary and cerebral events unrelated to aortic aneurysms in 10 (47.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Early and late outcomes did not statistically differ after both procedures. However, the prevalence of cancer-related death occurring late after arch repair was significantly higher after endovascular repair. The most important observation from this series was that significantly more patients died of malignant disease during follow-up after endovascular repair than open repair.

Mini open stent grafting with half sternotomy for aortic arch aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Open stent grafting is an alternative of graft replacement and thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch aneurysm. We have performed open stent grafting with half sternotomy (mini-OSG) to reduce in-hospital stay and recovery time of patients and herein report seven cases of mini-OSG for aortic aneurysm and dissection.

CASE PRESENTATION

The patients' mean age was 66 years. Cardiopulmonary bypass was performed conventionally, and an open stent graft was inserted via an aortotomy on the aortic arch during circulatory arrest. No mortality occurred. The mean operation time was 387 min, and the mean blood loss was 587 ml. The patients were weaned from the ventilator 7.1 h postoperatively. No pseudoaneurysm or endoleakage was observed during the 2- to 20-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-OSG might be less invasive, although further studies and intensive follow-up are needed.

Use of 3D Printing in Preoperative Planning and Training for Aortic Endovascular Repair and Aortic Valve Disease

Introduction

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has become an affordable tool for assisting heart surgeons in the aorta endovascular field, both in surgical planning, education and training of residents and students. This technique permits the construction of physical prototypes from conventional medical images by converting the anatomical information into computer aided design (CAD) files.

Objective

To present the 3D printing feature on developing prototypes leading to improved aortic endovascular surgical planning, as well as transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and mainly enabling training of the surgical procedure to be performed on patient's specific condition.

Methods

Six 3D printed real scale prototypes were built representing different aortic diseases, taken from real patients, to simulate the correction of the disease with endoprosthesis deployment.

Results

In the hybrid room, the 3D prototypes were examined under fluoroscopy, making it possible to obtain images that clearly delimited the walls of the aorta and its details. The endovascular simulation was then able to be performed, by correctly positioning the endoprosthesis, followed by its deployment.

Conclusion

The 3D printing allowed the construction of aortic diseases realistic prototypes, offering a 3D view from the two-dimensional image of computed tomography (CT) angiography, allowing better surgical planning and surgeon training in the specific case beforehand.

Safety of perioperative cerebral oxygen saturation during debranching in patients with incomplete circle of Willis

OBJECTIVES

The consequences of common carotid artery (CCA) cross-clamping during debranching before thoracic endovascular aortic repair are unclear. We examined the safety of a simple CCA cross-clamping procedure under regional cerebral oxygen saturation monitoring (rSO2) in patients with a complete or incomplete circle of Willis (CoW) anatomy.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients with thoracic aneurysm underwent elective debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair with bilateral frontal rSO2 monitoring at our institution between January 2012 and October 2015. Before CCA cross-clamping, we maintained a systemic mean arterial pressure of >100 mm Hg with a vasopressor. We recorded the bilateral frontal rSO2 before, during and after CCA cross-clamping.

RESULTS

The CoW was incomplete in 11 (39.3%) patients. Of these, 6 patients had a complication of ischaemic potential. The left frontal rSO2 was <50% in 3 patients but did not fall below 40%. Compared with baseline values (mean ± SD 64.6 ± 6.9%), the left frontal rSO2 showed no significant change perioperatively in those with a complete CoW on the left CCA cross-clamping (during: 61.0 ± 7.9%, P = 0.17; after: 65.1 ± 5.9%, P = 0.09). In patients with an incomplete CoW with ischaemic potential, the left frontal rSO2 did not change significantly after cross-clamping (baseline: 59.8 ± 3.2%, during: 55.5 ± 5.0%; P = 0.10) but increased significantly on declamping (62.8 ± 4.5%, P = 0.023). The extent of the changes in the mean left frontal rSO2 on clamping and declamping decreased and increased by 7.3% and 11.7%, respectively, in patients with an incomplete CoW, when compared with 5.3% and 5.8% in those with a complete CoW (P = 0.65 and 0.31, respectively). No perioperative cerebrovascular events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple CCA cross-clamping during debranching was safe when arterial pressure was supported and rSO2 was monitored, even with an incomplete CoW and ischaemic potential.