Vikram Sood1, Himanshu J Patel2, David M Williams3, Narasimham L Dasika3, Bo Yang1, G Michael Deeb1. 1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich. 2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich. Electronic address: hjpatel@med.umich.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Repair of isolated aortic arch aneurysms (nontraumatic) by either open (OAR) or endovascular (TEVAR) methods is associated with need for hypothermic circulatory arrest, complex debranching procedures, or use of marginal proximal landing zones. This study evaluates outcomes for treatment of this cohort. METHODS: Of 2153 patients undergoing arch repair (1993-2013), 137 (mean age, 60 years) were treated with isolated arch resection for nontraumatic aneurysms. Treatment was by open (n = 93), hybrid (n = 11), or TEVAR (n = 33) methods, with the last two approaches reserved for poor OAR candidates. Treatment was predominantly for saccular (n = 53) or fusiform (n = 30) aneurysms or dissection (n = 15). Rupture was present in 15%. Prior aortic repair was performed in the ascending (n = 30), arch (n = 40), descending (n = 24), or abdominal (n = 9) aorta. Propensity score adjustment was performed for multivariable analysis to account for baseline differences in patient groups as well as treatment selection bias. RESULTS: Early mortality was seen in nine patients (7%). Morbidity included stroke (n = 9), paraplegia (n = 1), and need for dialysis (n = 5) or tracheostomy (n = 10). A composite outcome of death and stroke was independently predicted by advancing age (P = .055) and performance of a hybrid procedure (P = .012). The 15-year survival was 59%, with late mortality predicted by increasing age, presence of peripheral vascular disease, and perioperative stroke (all P < .05). The 10-year freedom from aortic rupture or reintervention was 75% and was higher after OAR (2-year OAR, 94% vs TEVAR or hybrid, 78%; P = .018). After propensity-adjusted Cox regression analysis, both prior abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy (P = .017) and an endovascular or hybrid procedure (P = .001) independently predicted late aortic rupture or need for reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated arch repair remains a high-risk procedure occurring frequently in the reoperative setting. Despite being performed in a higher risk group, endovascular strategies yielded similar outcomes but with an increased risk for aorta-related complications. These data support ongoing efforts to develop branched endografts specifically tailored for arch disease to potentially reduce morbidity related to currently available approaches.
OBJECTIVE: Repair of isolated aortic arch aneurysms (nontraumatic) by either open (OAR) or endovascular (TEVAR) methods is associated with need for hypothermic circulatory arrest, complex debranching procedures, or use of marginal proximal landing zones. This study evaluates outcomes for treatment of this cohort. METHODS: Of 2153 patients undergoing arch repair (1993-2013), 137 (mean age, 60 years) were treated with isolated arch resection for nontraumatic aneurysms. Treatment was by open (n = 93), hybrid (n = 11), or TEVAR (n = 33) methods, with the last two approaches reserved for poor OAR candidates. Treatment was predominantly for saccular (n = 53) or fusiform (n = 30) aneurysms or dissection (n = 15). Rupture was present in 15%. Prior aortic repair was performed in the ascending (n = 30), arch (n = 40), descending (n = 24), or abdominal (n = 9) aorta. Propensity score adjustment was performed for multivariable analysis to account for baseline differences in patient groups as well as treatment selection bias. RESULTS: Early mortality was seen in nine patients (7%). Morbidity included stroke (n = 9), paraplegia (n = 1), and need for dialysis (n = 5) or tracheostomy (n = 10). A composite outcome of death and stroke was independently predicted by advancing age (P = .055) and performance of a hybrid procedure (P = .012). The 15-year survival was 59%, with late mortality predicted by increasing age, presence of peripheral vascular disease, and perioperative stroke (all P < .05). The 10-year freedom from aortic rupture or reintervention was 75% and was higher after OAR (2-year OAR, 94% vs TEVAR or hybrid, 78%; P = .018). After propensity-adjusted Cox regression analysis, both prior abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy (P = .017) and an endovascular or hybrid procedure (P = .001) independently predicted late aortic rupture or need for reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated arch repair remains a high-risk procedure occurring frequently in the reoperative setting. Despite being performed in a higher risk group, endovascular strategies yielded similar outcomes but with an increased risk for aorta-related complications. These data support ongoing efforts to develop branched endografts specifically tailored for arch disease to potentially reduce morbidity related to currently available approaches.
Authors: Manuel Alonso Pérez; José Manuel Llaneza Coto; José Antonio Del Castro Madrazo; Carlota Fernández Prendes; Mario González Gay; Amer Zanabili Al-Sibbai Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Harvey Romolo; Dicky A Wartono; Sugisman Suyuti; Bagus Herlambang; Michael Caesario; Ismoyo Sunu Journal: SAGE Open Med Case Rep Date: 2017-12-07
Authors: Michael D Dake; Joseph E Bavaria; Michael J Singh; Gustavo Oderich; Mark Filinger; Michael P Fischbein; Jon S Matsumura; Himanshu J Patel Journal: JTCVS Tech Date: 2021-01-16