Clinical outcomes of aortic arch hybrid repair in a real-world single-center experience

Abstract

Objective: Aortic arch aneurysmal disease remains a therapeutic challenge. For patients unsuitable for standard open surgery, hybrid repair with debranching of the supra-aortic arteries followed by thoracic endovascular grafting has been shown to be an effective solution. The aim of this study was to report the clinical outcomes of a single-institution experience using hybrid aortic arch repair. Methods: The cases of all consecutive patients submitted to hybrid aortic arch repair between January 2010 and June 2018 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of the study were 30-day mortality, perioperative complications, 2-year survival, endoleak, and reintervention rates. Results: A total of 35 patients with a median age of 71 years (interquartile range, 62-77 years) were submitted to hybrid aortic arch repair, with a median follow-up of 26.9 months (interquartile range, 2.4-63.6 months). Ten procedures (28.6%) were performed urgently for contained rupture. The most common etiology was degenerative (n ¼ 14 [40.0%]). The proximal landing zones according to the Ishimaru classification were zone 2 in 20 patients (57.1%), zone 1 in 12 patients (34.3%), and zone 0 in 3 patients (8.6%). Early endoleaks were observed in six patients (17.1%), equally distributed between type I and type II. Late endoleaks were identified in 4 of 24 patients (16.7%; type I, n ¼ 2 [8.3%]; type II, n ¼ 1 [4.2%]; and type III, n ¼ 1 [4.2%]). Thirty-day mortality rate was 14.3% (n ¼ 5) with an early death rate of 8.7% (2/23) in elective cases and 30.0% (3/10) in urgent cases (odds ratio [OR], 4.93; confidence interval [CI], 0.68-35.67; P ¼ .128). Except in one patient, 30-day mortality was associated with landing zone 0 or zone 1 (26.7% vs 5.0%; OR, 6.91; CI, 0.68-69.86; P ¼ .141). Three patients (8.6%) suffered a postoperative stroke, and no episodes of spinal cord ischemia were observed. Two-year survival rate was 67.8% (CI, 49.4%- 80.8%). Survival rates were significantly lower with increasing age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; CI, 1.03-1.18; P ¼ .004), urgent procedure (HR, 4.80; CI, 1.56-14.80; P ¼ .003), zone 0 or zone 1 (HR, 6.34; CI, 1.73-23.18; P ¼ .001), presence of arrhythmia (HR, 3.76; CI, 1.22-11.62; P ¼ .013), and cerebrovascular disease (HR, 4.12; CI, 1.38-12.35; P ¼ .006). A multivariate analysis identified age (HR, 1.11; P ¼ .047) and zone 0 or zone 1 (HR, 4.93; P ¼ .033) as the only predictors for overall mortality. Conclusions: Hybrid aortic arch repair seems to be an alternative for higher risk patients not suitable for open repair, but selection of patients is crucial and may benefit from further refinement. In this study, worse outcomes were seen in older patients and those who required more proximal landing zones.