Open Aortic Arch Repair Research Articles

Comparative Evaluation of the Short-Term Outcome of Different Endovascular Aortic Arch Procedures.

Objectives: There are several endovascular treatment options to treat aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts. This study seeks to assess endovascular treatment methods for aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), comparing different treatment methods and evaluating technical success, intraoperative parameters and short-term outcomes. Methods: All patients undergoing elective or emergency endovascular treatment of aortic arch and thoracic aortic pathologies, with no acceptable landing zone for standard TEVAR, between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2024, at the University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany were included. An acceptable landing zone was defined as a minimum of 2 cm for sufficient sealing. All patients were not suitable for open surgery. Patients were categorized by an endovascular treatment method for a comprehensive comparison of pre-, intra- and postoperative variables. IBM SPSS29 was used for data analysis. Results: The patient cohort comprised 21 patients, predominantly males (81%), with an average age of 70.9 ± 9 years with no acceptable proximal landing zone for standard TEVAR procedure. The most treated aortic pathologies were penetrating aortic ulcers and chronic post-dissection aneurysms. Patients were sub-grouped according to the applied procedure as follows: five patients with chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (chTEVAR), seven patients with in situ fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (isfTEVAR), six patients with custom-made fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmfTEVAR) and three patients with custom-made branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (cmbTEVAR). Emergency procedures involved two patients. There were significant differences in the total procedure and fluoroscopy time, as well as in contrast agent usage among the treatment groups. cmfTEVAR had the shortest total procedure time, while chTEVAR exhibited the highest contrast agent usage. The overall mortality rate among all procedures was 9.5% (two patients) and 4.7% for elective procedures, respectively. Deaths were associated with either retrograde type A dissection or stent graft infection. Both patients were treated with chTEVAR. There was one minor and one major stroke; these patients were treated with isfTEVAR. No endoleak occurred during any procedure. The reintervention rate for chTEVAR was 20% and 0% for all other procedures during the in-hospital stay. The patients who were treated with cmfTEVAR had no complications, the shortest operating and fluoroscopy time, and less contrast agent was needed in comparison with other treatment methods. Conclusions: Complex endovascular procedures of the aortic arch with custom-made or surgeon-modified aortic stent grafts offer a safe solution, with acceptable complication rates for patients who are not suitable for open aortic arch repair. In terms of procedure-related parameters and complication rates, a custom-made fenestrated TEVAR is potentially advantageous compared to the other endovascular techniques.

Open aortic arch repair without circulatory arrest by frozen elephant trunk in Ishimaru zone 0

BackgroundOpen arch surgery is technically demanding for the surgeon and surgically and biologically invasive for the patient, requiring a variably long period of hypothermic circulatory arrest.Case presentationHere we present a case of an elderly patient with chronic renal failure and multiple splanchnic artery disease successfully treated for a rupturing pseudoaneurysm of the aortic arch with a technique that we developed for particularly frail patients. The procedure includes: triple supra-aortic vessel perfusion; distal thoracic aorta antegrade perfusion; balloon endo-clamping of the descending aorta; and anastomosis of an off-the-shelf hybrid arch prosthesis in Ishimaru zone 0. These maneuvers allowed to maintain an extracorporeal circulation in the phase of distal anastomosis, instead of a period of circulatory arrest, employing just mild hypothermia: technical details are depicted and discussed also in comparison with other methods proposed in the literature.ConclusionsBeing able to take advantage of both open surgery advancements and endovascular methods is the key to cardiovascular surgery success today in front of complex pathologies of the aorta: increasing safety and reducing invasiveness of therapeutic options may progressively extend surgical candidacy to the frailest patients.

Total aortic arch repair between endo and hybrid-the Nexus single-branched endograft.

Minimally invasive zone 0 arch procedures have experienced a great evolution from the total zone 0 debranching techniques towards the total endovascular aortic arch procedures in the last decade. This evolution followed the aim of improved perioperative outcomes for patients with substantial comorbidities, who are not candidates for open aortic arch repair. Nowadays, branched endografts are the main endovascular alternative to the frozen elephant trunk technique. In the case of anatomical suitability, branched endovascular repair of the aortic arch offers an excellent treatment option for patients with severe risk profiles for open surgery [1]. The repair is predominantly based on the custom-made inner branch platforms, with 2 or 3 tunnels located in the main graft, which allow for a safe overlap with the bridging stent grafts to the supra-aortic vessels [2]. From the technical point of view, the Nexus single-branched endograft is different. It is bimodular and consists of a branched arch and an anatomically preshaped ascending aorta module. The branch to the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT) is located at the proximal end of the arch module and allows for precise deployment of the BCT branch from the bifurcation to the BCT origin prior to the complete deployment of the aortic arch and descending aorta portion. The implantation is accomplished by the deployment of the ascending module, which lands distally with its locking latches into the docking sleeve of the arch module.

The 10 Commandments of Open Aortic Arch Repair

The 10 Commandments of Open Aortic Arch Repair

Aortic arch repair: lessons learned over three decades at Baylor College of Medicine.

The treatment of complex aortic arch disease continues to be among the most demanding cardiovascular operations, with a considerable risk of death and stroke. Since January 1990, our single-practice service has performed over 3000 repairs of the aortic arch. Our aim was to describe the progression of our technical approach to open aortic arch repair. Our center's surgical technique has evolved considerably over the last three decades. When it comes to initial arterial cannulation, we have shifted away from femoral artery cannulation to innominate and axillary artery cannulation. During difficult repairs, this transition has made it easier to use antegrade cerebral perfusion rather than retrograde cerebral perfusion, which was commonly used in the early days. Brain protection tactics during open aortic arch procedures have evolved from profound (≤14 °C) hypothermia during circulatory arrest to moderate (22-24 °C) hypothermia. Aortic arch repair is performed through a median sternotomy and may treat acute aortic dissection, chronic aortic dissection, or degenerative aneurysm. Reoperative repair - that necessitating redo sternotomy - is common in patients undergoing aortic arch repair. The majority of repairs will include varying portions of the ascending aorta and may involve the aortic valve or the aortic root. In some patients, repair may extend into the proximal descending thoracic aorta; this includes elephant trunk, frozen elephant trunk, and antegrade hybrid approaches.

The New York experience of open arch surgery.

Aortic arch repair has undergone constant evolution since its inception with improving outcomes. A sizeable number of competing techniques and strategies have been described, with no single optimal method endorsed by the surgical community. We describe our experience with open aortic arch repair in a high-volume center. We queried our aortic database for consecutive patients undergoing aortic arch repair from 1997-2021. Those undergoing hemiarch repair were compared to those undergoing total arch repair. Outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis. Of 1308 patients undergoing aortic arch repair, 953 underwent hemiarch repair and 355 underwent total arch repair. The median age was 69 (interquartile ratio 58-76) and 61.7% were men. Hemiarch patients more frequently hade aortic dissection (28.5 vs. 11.8%, P<0.001) and urgent or emergent procedure status (45.1 vs. 30.4%, P<0.001). Overall operative mortality was 2.7% and significantly higher in the hemiarch group (3.5 vs. 0.6%, P=0.007). No difference in the incidence of major adverse events (MAE) including myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, new need for dialysis, re-exploration for bleeding, and tracheostomy was found between the two groups. Multivariate analysis found diabetes, urgent or emergent procedure status, preoperative renal dysfunction, New York Heart Association class III/IV symptoms, and connective tissue disease to be independent predictors of MAE. Retrograde cerebral perfusion with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest is safe and effective, with no appreciable difference in neurologic outcomes when comparing hemiarch to total arch strategies. Rates of mortality and MAE compare favorably with strategies utilizing antegrade cerebral perfusion.

Long-term patency of surgical left subclavian artery revascularization

ObjectiveLittle is known regarding the long-term patency rates of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization, especially when performed concomitant to thoracic endovascular aortic repair and without arterial occlusive disease. Our aim is to contribute to the existing evidence by reporting the patency rates at mid- and long-term follow-up after surgical LSA revascularization. MethodsThis observational, retrospective, single-center cohort study included 90 eligible patients who underwent a left common carotid artery to LSA bypass (72%) or transposition (28%) from December 31, 2017 to January 1, 2000. Data regarding demographics, medical history, intraoperative characteristics, and outcomes regarding bypass graft or transposition patency, severe stenosis, or occlusion were assessed at discharge, 3 months, 1 year, and maximum follow-up using consecutive follow-up computed tomography scans. ResultsIn our predominantly male (74%) cohort with a mean age of 66 years (standard deviation, ±12 years), LSA revascularization was mostly performed concomitant to or adjacent to thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair procedures (98%) with the primary indication for surgery being degenerative or saccular aneurysmatic aortic disease (50%), subacute or acute type B aortic dissection (17%), post-dissection aortic aneurysm (16%), type B intramural hematoma (6%), and other indications (11%). Ninety-seven percent of our left common carotid artery to LSA bypasses were performed using a central, supraclavicular approach, and the other 3% were performed using an infraclavicular approach to the LSA. Median diameter of the bypass was 6 mm (range, 6-12 mm). We found two occlusions at 7.7 and 12.9 months follow-up and four severe stenoses at 21.2, 35.4, 38.3, and 46.7 months follow-up, respectively. Estimated freedom from occlusion was 97% ± 2% and freedom from severe stenosis was 90% ± 4% at both midterm (5 years) and long-term (10 years) follow-up, with a median follow-up duration of 42.2 months for occlusion (25th-75th percentile, 15.4-67.4 months) and 41.9 months (25th-75th percentile, 15.4-67.4 months) for severe stenosis. ConclusionsOpen surgical LSA revascularization may be considered the gold standard to preserve antegrade LSA flow in the context of debranching for thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair or open surgical aortic arch repair, with excellent patency rates at mid-term and long-term follow-up.

Total Aortic Arch Replacements With a 4 Branched Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) Graft in Acute Aortic Dissection (DeBakey type I)

Total Aortic Arch Replacements With a 4 Branched Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) Graft in Acute Aortic Dissection (DeBakey type I)

Retrograde autologous priming method reduces plasma free hemoglobin level in aortic surgery.

Background:Although conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (cCPB) is still the most widely used method in open heart surgery, methods such as retrograde autologous priming (RAP) are increasingly popular in terms of limiting hemodilution. Our hypothesis is that the use of the RAP method in aortic surgery may result in a limitation of hemodilution and a decrease in fHb levels. For this purpose, plasma free hemoglobin (fHb) levels were investigated in adult open aortic arch repair with axillary artery cannulation patients using cCPB and rRAP methods.Materials and Methods:In this study, a total of 36 patients undergoing aortic surgery using rRAP and standard cCPB were investigated. Measurements were performed at five time points: After induction of anesthesia, 5th minute of CPB, 10th minute of antegrade cerebral perfusion, 30th minute after declamping of aorta, and at sternum closure. Besides hemodynamic variables, arterial blood gas analysis and postoperative variables, patients were assessed for fHb levels.Results:The rRAP group had a significantly lower increase in fHb levels in T3, T4, and T5 time points, when compared to the cCPB group (p = 0.002, 0.047, 0.009, respectively). There was no significant difference between the rRAP and cCPB groups in other intraoperative, and postoperative variables. Also, it was observed that rRAP did not make a difference in terms of blood and blood product transfusion.Conclusion:In this study, in patients undergoing aortic surgery, a reduction in the increase of fHb was observed with the rRAP method which is a simple procedure that does not require high cost or advanced technology.

Conventional open versus hybrid aortic arch repair: a meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies.

BackgroundComparison of conventional (open) surgical versus hybrid aortic arch repair remains debatable. While the majority of previous comparative studies including meta-analyses contained primarily risk-unadjusted cohorts, those focusing on propensity-matched comparisons were limited by their small sample size. We aimed to compare outcomes of these two approaches through an up-to-date search and meta-analysis of the best evidence currently available in the literature.MethodsThe PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library from inception to September 2019 were searched to identify articles reporting propensity-score matching data on open versus hybrid aortic arch repair. Patients’ baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis. Heterogeneity and biases were assessed among the included studies.ResultsFive studies, including a total of 378 patients (189 pairs), were included in the study. The two groups were similar in patients’ baseline characteristics. Stroke rate favoured the open group [2.1% versus 14.3%, OR 0.18 (0.07, 0.46), P=0.0004, I2=0%]. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to paraplegia. The hybrid group had numerically higher short-term mortality, but lower rate of acute renal failure requiring dialysis. There was a statistically significant difference between the mid-term survivals of the open and hybrid groups, with lower pooled mortality seen for the open group at 1-year and 2-years (P=0.02).ConclusionsOpen and hybrid repairs do not offer equivalent outcomes. Compared with hybrid aortic arch repair, conventional surgical aortic repair could be associated with favourable outcomes including postoperative stroke. Hybrid repair does not appear to provide better survival. Operative approaches should be carefully selected in treating aortic arch pathology.

Iatrogenic coarctation caused by branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair treated with Palmaz XL stent and triple kissing balloon technique.

We have described a technique to treat iatrogenic coarctation caused by a branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedure with a Palmaz XL stent (Palmaz Genesis; Cordis Corp, a Cardinal Health Company, Milpitas, Calif) and triple kissing balloons. A 42-year-old woman with Marfan syndrome had presented with aneurysmatic dilatation of the aortic arch 10 years after open aortic arch repair. After successful branched TEVAR, a significant coarctation just short of the left common carotid artery was noted with significant pressure gradient between the ascending and descending aorta. Branched TEVAR in previous open aortic arch replacement can result in iatrogenic coarctation that can be successfully treated using a Palmaz XL stent and triple kissing balloons.

Mini-access open arch repair.

BackgroundThe use of minimally invasive approaches is scarce in open aortic arch repair because of its perceived high operative risk and technical difficulty.MethodsThis study enrolled 59 consecutive patients (aged 58.2±13.2 years) undergoing elective arch replacement either through upper hemi-sternotomy (n=58) or mini-thoracotomy (n=1) between 2015 and 2020. Of these, 44 underwent hemiarch replacement and 15 underwent total arch replacement. Moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest was used for all patients while antegrade cerebral perfusion was selectively used for total arch repair. For more efficient distal aortic anastomosis in limited spaces, inverted graft anastomosis was utilized whenever possible.ResultsHemi-sternotomy involved upper sternal separation down to the second, third, and fourth intercostal spaces in 1 (1.7%), 30 (50.8%), and 27 (45.8%) patients, respectively. Concomitant cardiac procedures included root replacement in 19 patients (32.2%) and aortic valve replacement in 21 patients (35.6%). Circulatory arrest, cardiac ischemic, cardiopulmonary bypass, and total procedural times were 8.9±3.4, 91.1±31.1, 114.6±46.2, and 250.3±79.5 min, respectively for total arch repair, and 25.0±12.1, 72.3±16.6, 106.0±16.9, and 249.1±41.7 min, respectively for hemiarch repair. Conversion to full-sternotomy was required in 1 patient (1.7%) due to bleeding. There was one case of mortality (1.7%) attributable to low-cardiac output syndrome following hemiarch repair concomitantly with Bentall procedure. Major complications included requirement for mechanical support in 1 (1.7%), temporary neurologic deficit in 1 (1.7%), newly initiated dialysis in 3 (5.1%), and re-exploration due to bleeding in 2 (3.4%).ConclusionsMini-access open arch repair is technically feasible and achieved excellent early outcomes.

Femoral artery cannulation as a safe alternative for aortic dissection arch repair in the era of axillary artery cannulation.

BackgroundTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of femoral artery cannulation as an alternative to axillary artery cannulation, we retrospectively compared outcomes between patients with axillary or femoral artery cannulation during open aortic arch repair for type A aortic dissection (TAAD).MethodsBetween January 2014 and January 2019, 646 patients underwent open aortic arch repair with circulatory arrest for TAAD using antegrade selective cerebral perfusion (SACP) and were divided into two groups according to the site of arterial cannulation: an axillary artery group (axillary group, n=558) or a femoral artery group (femoral group, n=88). The axillary artery was considered as the primary cannulation site, and the femoral artery was used as an alternative when axillary artery cannulation was deemed unsuitable or had failed. Propensity score matching was performed to correct baseline differences.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, the patients’ characteristics were comparable between groups (n=85 in each). The incidence of in-hospital mortality (10.6% vs. 14.1%; P=0.642) and stroke (3.5% vs. 5.9%; P=0.720) were comparable between the axillary and femoral groups. The incidence of newly required dialysis was lower in the femoral group, but the difference was not statistically significant (34.1% vs. 20.0%; P=0.050). Other outcomes and major adverse events were comparable.ConclusionsFemoral artery cannulation produced similar perioperative outcomes to axillary cannulation after open arch repair for TAAD. The femoral artery can be used as a safe and effective alternative to the axillary artery for arterial cannulation in TAAD patients undergoing open arch repair.

Long-Term Outcomes after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using Chimney Grafts for Aortic Arch Pathologies: 10 Years of Single-Center Experience

This study reports the early- and long-term outcomes of the thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the Chimney-Graft technique (ChTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies. From January 2010 to December 2019, patients who underwent aortic ChTEVAR technique in our institution were included. Early, mid, and long-term outcomes in this group of patients were evaluated. Patient follow-up data were obtained by imaging follow-up that are routinely performed after 3-6months following initial surgery and then at yearly intervals. Aortic arch repair with a ChTEVAR was performed in 54 patients. The 30-day mortality was 18.5% (n=10). All-cause 30-day mortality was higher in the subgroup of patients operated urgently (33% vs. 14%) without a significant difference (P = 0.141). Permanent neurological deficit (PND) was observed in 15% (8/54 patients); stroke in 11% (6/54), and paraplegia 4% (2/54). During follow-up the primary and primary-assisted chimney-graft patency was 96.8% and 97.8%, respectively. The multivariate analysis identified the age >70years and the aortic diameter as independent risk factors for elevated mortality during the follow-up (P = 0.015 and 0.001, respectively). The PND was an independent predictor for 30-day mortality (P = 0.014, hazard ratio 13.5, 95% confidence interval 1.7-106.6). The ChTEVAR has noninferior results to other open and endovascular aortic arch repair methods with an acceptable long-term survival especially in elective procedures.

TAA 21. Hybrid Repair of Ruptured Aortic Arch Aneurysm Combined With Aberrant Right Subclavian Artery: Case Report

Surgical repair of aortic arch aneurysms is still an invasive procedure requiring arch replacement during deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. Endovascular aortic arch repair is less invasive compared with the open surgical aortic arch repair in treating aortic arch disease; this correlates with low morbidity and mortality rates, even in high-risk patients. Aortic arch diseases, such as aneurysms and dissections, often involve the origin of the supra-aortic branches. Surgical aortic arch debranching is therefore indicated before covering of these branches. On the other hand, an aberrant right subclavian artery is the most common abnormality arising in the development of the aortic arch. We describe an original method of revascularization followed by stent graft insertion in the case of ruptured aortic arch aneurysm with existing aberrant right subclavian artery. A 56-year-old woman was admitted to our emergency department because of chest pain, cough, and hemoptysis. At the time of admission, the blood pressure was 200/100 mm Hg; pulse rate was 115 beats/min. The initial laboratory findings showed hemoglobin level of 8.9 g/dL. The computed tomography scan showed a 6-cm fusiform aneurysm of the aortic arch 0.5 cm distal to the left carotid artery, extravasation of the contrast material from the posterior wall, and aberrant right subclavian artery (Fig 1). After a multidisciplinary team discussion, a decision was made to perform a hybrid procedure as a safer and more viable option than surgical replacement of the aortic arch. In our case, the hybrid procedure was performed in three steps: bilateral subclavian to carotid bypass with supraclavicular access, followed by midline sternotomy and aorta-bicarotid bypass (Dacron 16/8 mm) from ascending aorta, and finally implantation of an endovascular stent graft that completely covered the aortic arch. The operation was performed under brain oxygenation monitoring. No extracorporeal circulation was used. After the procedure, normal blood flow to the branches of the aortic arch was restored; the aortic aneurysm was completely isolated, and there was no endoleak (Fig 2). The patient was discharged 15 days after the operation with stable hemodynamics, without symptoms of neurologic deficiency and in a good general condition. Endovascular repair after aortic arch debranching has the potential to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates in patients with ruptured aortic arch aneurysm and abnormality of the supra-aortic branches.Fig 2Aorta-bicarotid bypass, bilateral subclavian to carotid bypass, and aortic stent graft.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Axillary artery cannulation reduces early embolic stroke and mortality after open arch repair with circulatory arrest

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of axillary artery cannulation for early embolic stroke and operative mortality, we retrospectively compared the outcomes between patients with or without axillary artery cannulation during open aortic arch repair with circulatory arrest. MethodsBetween January 2004 and December 2017, 468 patients underwent open aortic arch repair with circulatory arrest using antegrade cerebral perfusion and were divided into 2 groups according to the site of arterial cannulation: the axillary artery (axillary group, n = 352) or another site (nonaxillary group, n = 116) groups. Embolic stroke was defined as a physician-diagnosed new postoperative neurologic deficit lasting more than 72 hours, generally confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. ResultsAfter propensity score matching, the patients' characteristics were comparable between the groups (n = 116 in each). The incidences of acute type A dissection, aortic rupture, shock, or emergency operation were similar between groups. The incidence of early embolic stroke was significantly lower in axillary group (n = 3 [2.6%] vs n = 10 [8.6%]; P = .046). Also, 30-day mortality (n = 3 [2.6%] vs n = 10 [8.6%]; P = .046) and in-hospital mortality (n = 3 [2.6%] vs n = 11 [9.5%]; P = .027) occurred significantly lower in the axillary group. ConclusionsAxillary artery cannulation reduced the early embolic stroke and early mortality after open arch repair with circulatory arrest. Axillary artery cannulation as the arterial cannulation site during open arch repair with circulatory arrest may be helpful in preventing embolic stroke and reducing early mortality.

Long-Term Survival and Related Outcomes for Hybrid Versus Traditional Arch Repair: A Meta-Analysis

Aim: Surgical interventions for aortic aneurysm and dissection are associated with high risk of mortality and morbidity. Advances in operative techniques have led to a variety of options for the cardiac surgeon, including endovascular and hybrid approaches. Debate remains over which of these techniques provide optimal outcomes for the patient. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate long-term patient survival and identify short-term outcomes for conventional (open) aortic arch repair and hybrid aortic arch repair.

Open aortic arch surgery: the gold standard method.

Aortic arch pathologies are complex and treating them requires close team collaboration and technical skills to provide safe outcomes with low morbidity and mortality rates. Such challenges are facing both aortic and vascular surgeons. Open aortic arch repair has been the standard method of practice in all cases of aortic arch pathologies for the last four decades since the very first successful published case series by Griepp et al. during 1975. However, since then, repair of multi-segmented thoracic aortic pathologies has been explored through endovascular techniques; this is with or without open repair as a one-stage procedure especially in high-risk and elderly patients. Although the role of endovascular techniques in thoracoabdominal aorta is well established, its utilization as solo technique in aortic arch pathologies remains debatable. In this review, we highlight current evidences behind using open, endovascular, and hybrid procedures in aortic arch surgery.

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.

Long-term survival and related outcomes for hybrid versus traditional arch repair-a meta-analysis.

Surgical interventions for aortic aneurysm and dissection remain associated with high risk of mortality and morbidity. Advances in operative techniques have led to a variety of options for the cardiac surgeon, including endovascular and hybrid approaches. Debate remains over which of these techniques provide optimal outcomes for the patient. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate long term patient survival and identify short-term outcomes for conventional (open) aortic arch repair and hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR). An electronic literature search was conducted according to predefined inclusion criteria for hybrid and conventional aortic arch repair surgery. Digitized survival data was extracted from identified studies' Kaplan-Meier curves and used to re-create individual patient data for aggregated survival analysis. Post-operative morbidity and mortality were analyzed using random-effects model meta-analysis. Nine studies were included, containing 841 hybrid arch repair and 1,182 conventional arch repair patients. Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all patients demonstrated higher survival in hybrid arch repair patients than conventional arch repair patients, however, this was noted to be sensitive to results from a particular study. Overall results showed for the hybrid repair cohort, survival at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 years was 87%, 85%, 83%, 78% and 75%, respectively. Survival in the conventional repair cohort at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 years was 84%, 82%, 80%, 75% and 71%, respectively. Statistically significant findings from meta-analysis showed hybrid arch repair was associated with lower risk of re-operation for bleeding, while conventional arch repair was associated with reduced risk of spinal cord injury. Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all studies showed long-term survival outcomes for hybrid and conventional aortic arch repair patients are heterogeneous and sensitive to the results of particular studies. Superior results from particular centres and the low number of comparative studies mean that more data is required to make definitive findings with regards to the long-term survival outcomes of either procedure. Hybrid arch repair was associated with lower risk of re-operation for bleeding, while conventional arch repair was associated with lower risk of spinal cord injury. Surgeons should consider their own center's experience and patient suitability when deciding between hybrid or conventional aortic repair techniques.