Single Institution Experience with Hybrid Endovascular and Surgical Repairs Involving the Distal Aortic Arch Academic Article uri icon

  •  
  • Overview
  •  
  • Research
  •  
  • Identity
  •  
  • Additional Document Info
  •  
  • View All
  •  

abstract

  • BACKGROUND: A hybrid approach of aortic arch and descending aorta pathology, involving surgical debranching of the great vessels after endovascular stenting, has been increasingly used as an alternative to entirely open surgical repair. This study reviews and reports our single-center experience with hybrid aortic arch repair over the span of a decade. METHODS: A total of 43 patients who underwent hybrid arch repair from 2005 to 2015 were identified. Key endpoints included the presenting pathology, perioperative details, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age was 64.9 years at the commencement of surgery (61.4% men [n = 27] and 38.6% women [n = 16]). Presenting pathologies included aneurysms (77%), dissections (16%), pseudoaneurysms (5%), and transections (2%). While most procedures were multistaged, single-stage interventions were completed for 16.3% (n = 7) of patients. Emergent surgeries were performed in 23.3% of cases; the remaining 76.7% of cases were elective. The proximal extents of endovascular repair were zone 0 (n = 4), zone 1 (n = 12), zone 2 (n = 20), and zone 3 (n = 1). The remaining 6 patients had had aberrant or anomalous distal origins of a great vessel that required debranching. Technical success rates of surgical revascularizations and subsequent endovascular stenting were both 100%. The 30-day perioperative event rates for mortality, stroke, and cardiac events were 7.0% (n = 3), 4.7% (n = 2), and 9.3% (n = 4), respectively. At the end of 2-year follow-up, total mortality and stroke rates were 11.6% (n = 5) and 7.0% (n = 3), respectively. The 2-year primary patency of the revascularizations was 97.8%, and the associated primary-assisted patency was 100%. Secondary interventions were necessary for 32% (n = 12) of the patients, 67% of which (n = 8) were warranted because of endoleaks. The remaining secondary interventions were required to resolve device migration (n = 1), stent graft stenosis (n = 1), and disease progression (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid approaches are viable alternatives to entirely open surgical treatments of acute and chronic aortic arch pathology and may be particularly attractive for high-risk patients. Surgical revascularizations appear durable, but endovascular reintervention is not uncommon and highlights the need for careful surveillance after repair.

publication date

  • January 2020

has subject area