Literature DB >> 26573355

Total aortic arch replacement: A comparative study of zone 0 hybrid arch exclusion versus traditional open repair.

Ourania Preventza1, Andrea Garcia2, Denton A Cooley3, Ricky J L Haywood-Watson2, Kiki Simpson4, Faisal G Bakaeen5, Lorraine D Cornwell6, Shuab Omer6, Kim I de la Cruz7, Matt D Price2, Todd K Rosengart8, Scott A LeMaire8, Joseph S Coselli7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to identify predictors of adverse outcomes after traditional open and hybrid zone 0 total aortic arch replacement.
METHODS: We performed multivariable analysis using 16 variables to identify predictors of adverse outcomes (mortality, permanent neurologic events, and permanent renal failure necessitating hemodialysis) in 319 consecutive patients who underwent total aortic arch replacement in the past 8.5 years and a subgroup analysis in 25 propensity-matched pairs. A total of 274 patients (85.9%) had traditional open repair, and 45 patients (14.1%) had hybrid zone 0 total arch exclusion.
RESULTS: Operative mortality was 10.3% (n = 33): 11.1% (n = 5) in the hybrid group and 10.2% (n = 28) in the traditional group (P = .79). A total of 19 patients (5.9%) had permanent stroke (15 traditional [5.5%] vs 4 hybrid [8.9%]; P = .32), and 2 patients (both traditional) had permanent paraplegia (P = 1.00). The hybrid group had more total neurologic events (P = .051) but not more permanent strokes (P = .32). Prior cardiac disease unrelated to the aorta (P = .0033) and congestive heart failure (P = .0053) independently predicted permanent adverse outcome (operative mortality, permanent neurologic event, or permanent renal failure). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting independently predicted permanent stroke (P = .032), as did previous cerebrovascular disease (P = .032). In multivariable analysis, procedure type (hybrid or traditional) was not an independent predictor of stroke (P = .09). During a median follow-up of 4.5 years (95% confidence interval, 3.9-4.9), survival was 78.7%, with no intergroup difference (P = .14).
CONCLUSIONS: Among contemporary cases, both traditional and hybrid total aortic arch replacement had acceptable results. Comparing these 2 different surgical treatment options is challenging, and an individualized approach offers the best results. Permanent adverse outcome was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Procedure type is not an independent predictor of permanent stroke. Prior cardiac disease, past or current smoking, and congestive heart failure predict adverse outcomes for total aortic arch replacement.
Copyright © 2015 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aorta; hybrid aortic arch repair; total aortic arch replacement; traditional open arch repair

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26573355     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  15 in total

Review 1.  Open repair techniques in the aortic arch are still superior.

Authors:  Jean Bachet
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-05

2.  Zone zero hybrid arch exclusion versus open total arch replacement.

Authors:  Ourania Preventza; Corinne W Tan; Vicente Orozco-Sevilla; Caleb J Euhus; Joseph S Coselli
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-05

3.  Cerebral embolic protection during endovascular arch replacement.

Authors:  Christine R Herman; Christian Rosu; Cherrie Z Abraham
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-05

4.  Early and Midterm Outcomes of Type II Hybrid Arch Repair for Complex Aortic Arch Pathology.

Authors:  Yanxiang Liu; Bowen Zhang; Shenghua Liang; Yaojun Dun; Hongwei Guo; Xiangyang Qian; Cuntao Yu; Xiaogang Sun
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-06-02

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

Authors:  Adam Chakos; Dean Jbara; Tristan D Yan; David H Tian
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-05

6.  Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms.

Authors:  Ala Elhelali; Niamh Hynes; Declan Devane; Sherif Sultan; Edel P Kavanagh; Liam Morris; Dave Veerasingam; Fionnuala Jordan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-06-04

7.  Severe systemic inflammatory response syndrome in patients following Total aortic arch replacement with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest.

Authors:  Jun Li; Lijing Yang; Guyan Wang; Yuefu Wang; Chunrong Wang; Sheng Shi
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 1.637

8.  Early Outcomes of Three Total Arch Replacement Strategies for DeBakey Type I Aortic Dissection.

Authors:  Enzehua Xie; Jinlin Wu; Juntao Qiu; Lu Dai; Jiawei Qiu; Qipeng Luo; Wenxiang Jiang; Fangfang Cao; Rui Zhao; Shuya Fan; Wei Gao; Hongwei Guo; Xiaogang Sun; Cuntao Yu
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-04-15

9.  One-stage hybrid procedure for distal aortic arch disease: mid-term experience at a single center.

Authors:  Su-Wei Chen; Yong-Liang Zhong; Zhi-Yu Qiao; Cheng-Nan Li; Yi-Peng Ge; Rui-Dong Qi; Hai-Ou Hu; Li-Zhong Sun; Jun-Ming Zhu
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 2.895

10.  Treatment of aortic arch aneurysms: Open surgery or hybrid procedure?

Authors:  Orhan Gökalp; Levent Yılık; Hasan İner; Yüksel Beşir; Nihan Karakaş Yeşilkaya; Kazım Ergüneş; Banu Lafcı; Ali Gürbüz
Journal:  Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 0.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.