Short- and long-term results of total arch replacement: Comparison between island and debranching techniques.

Abstract

The 2 most acceptable techniques for reimplantation of the supra-aortic vessels in total arch replacement include the branched graft technique (debranching)or en bloc technique (island). We aim to review our experience with total arch replacement and report short- and long-term outcomes from a high-volume center dedicated to surgery for the thoracic aorta. The aortic surgery database was queried to identify all consecutive patients undergoing total arch replacement between 1997 and 2022. Of the 426 patients who underwent total arch replacement, 303 (71%) received the island technique and 123 (29%) received the debranching approach. Operative and long-term outcomes were compared using multivariable models. The debranching group was younger (64 ± 14 years vs 69 ± 12 years, P=.001), had undergone more previous cardiac operations (54.5% vs 27.4%, P<.001), and had more connective tissue disorder (20.3% vs 4.6%, P<.001). The debranching approach was associated with longer total circulatory arrest time (47 ± 15 minutes vs 37 ± 10minutes, P<.001) and cardiac ischemic time (116 ± 41 minutes vs 100 ± 37minutes, P<.001). More patients in the debranching group received blood products intraoperatively or postoperatively (56.1% vs 42.9%, P=.018). All other early outcomes did not differ between groups. Overall operative mortality was 1.4% (2.4% vs 1%, P=.486); the incidence of major postoperative complications was 6.3% (5.7% vs 6.6%, P=.897). Ten-year survival was 80% (78% vs 80.9%, log-rank P=.356). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that neither surgical approach was associated with survival advantage (hazard ratio, 1.18; 0.73-1.89; P=.495). Debranching requires a longer operative time, with similar early and long-term outcomes. Preoperative comorbidity, not surgical technique, predicts major adverse events and long-term survival.