One-Stage Hybrid Total Aortic Arch and Descending Thoracic Aortic Repair is a Safe and Secure Procedure With Less Postoperative Complications for Extended Aortic Arch Aneurysms

Abstract

Purpose Hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR) has been implemented for extended aortic arch and descending thoracic aortic disease since 2012 in our institution. This study aimed to estimate the early and mid-term efficacy and safety of HAR. Materials and Methods From 2007 to 2019, 56 patients underwent HAR for extended aortic arch disease, and 75 patients underwent total arch replacement (TAR) for arch-limited disease. HAR comprises 3 procedures: replacement of the aorta, reconstruction of all arch vessels, and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) from zone 0 to the descending aorta after cardiopulmonary bypass is off in 1 stage. The type II-1 HAR procedure, in which the ascending aorta and aortic arch distal to the brachiocephalic artery are replaced, was the most frequently selected procedure (40/56 patients). The outcomes of the type II-1 HAR procedure were compared with those of TAR using the Cox regression analysis. Results The median follow-up period was 36 months. In HAR, the operative mortality, in-hospital mortality, and postoperative permanent neurological deficits were not observed. The paraplegia rate was 1.8%. TEVAR-related complications occurred in 3 patients. Among the patients with non-ruptured atherosclerotic aortic arch aneurysm (31 type II-1 HAR patients and 36 TAR patients, the postoperative respiratory support time in those who underwent type II-1 HAR was quicker than in those who underwent TAR (p<0.01). The rate of 6 year freedom from all-cause death in type II-1 HAR (83.1%) was numerically higher than that in TAR (74.7%), and the rate of 6 year freedom from surgery-related complications in type II-1 HAR (90.3%) was numerically lower than that in TAR (96.9%) due to the occurrence of TEVAR-related complications, and the rate of 6 year freedom from reintervention to the descending thoracic aorta in type II-1 HAR (100%) seemed to be better than that in TAR (83.7%). However, Cox regression analysis did not reveal any statistical difference between the 2 procedures. Conclusions HAR, especially the type II-1 procedure, can treat extended aortic arch disease with acceptable survival outcomes. The development of TEVAR technology will further improve the outcomes of HAR in the future.