An international, expert-based, Delphi consensus document on controversial issues in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: As a result of conflicting, inadequate or controversial data in the literature, several issues concerning the management of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) remain unanswered. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi consensus document was to provide some guidance for clinicians on these controversial topics. METHODS: A three-round Delphi consensus document was produced with 44 experts on 6 prespecified topics regarding the management of AAAs. All answers were provided anonymously. The response rate for each round was 100%. RESULTS: Most participants (42 of 44 [95.4%]) agreed that a minimum case volume per year is essential (or probably essential) for a center to offer open or endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). Furthermore, 33 of 44 (75.0%) believed that AAA screening programs are (probably) still clinically effective and cost effective. Additionally, most panelists (36 of 44 [81.9%]) voted that surveillance after EVAR should be (or should probably be) lifelong. Finally, 35 of 44 participants (79.7%) thought that women smokers should (or should probably/possibly) be considered for screening at 65 years of age, similar to men. No consensus was achieved regarding lowering the threshold for AAA repair and the need for deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in patients undergoing EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: This expert-based Delphi consensus document provides guidance for clinicians regarding specific unresolved issues. Consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting the need for further research in those areas.

Why selective screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis is currently appropriate: a special report.

INTRODUCTION: Two of the main reasons recent guidelines do not recommend routine population-wide screening programs for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS) is that screening could lead to an increase of carotid revascularization procedures and that such mass screening programs may not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, selective screening for AsxCS could have several benefits. This article presents the rationale for such a program. AREAS COVERED: The benefits of selective screening for AsxCS include early recognition of AsxCS allowing timely initiation of preventive measures to reduce future myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death and cardiovascular (CV) event rates. EXPERT OPINION: Mass screening programs for AsxCS are neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted screening of populations at high risk for AsxCS provides an opportunity to identify these individuals earlier rather than later and to initiate a number of lifestyle measures, risk factor modifications, and intensive medical therapy in order to prevent future strokes and CV events. For patients at 'higher risk of stroke' on best medical treatment, a prophylactic carotid intervention may be considered.

An international, multispecialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document on controversial issues in the management of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear. METHODS: Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response. RESULTS: Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

The evolution of management of type B aortic dissection in a series of 100 consecutive cases in a tertiary center.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Management of aortic dissection is rapidly evolving. The present study aims to assess paradigm shifts in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) treatment modalities and their outcomes according to clinical presentation and type of treatment. We also aim to assess the impact of endovascular technology in TBAD management in order to define organizational strategies to provide an integrated cardiovascular approach. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review with descriptive analysis of the last 100 consecutive patients with TBAD admitted to the Vascular Surgery Department of Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte over a 16-year period. Results were stratified according to treatment modality and stage of the disease. The study was further divided into two time periods, 2003-2010 and 2011-2019, respectively before and after the introduction of a dedicated endovascular program for aortic dissections. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (83% male; mean age 60 years) were included, of whom 59 were admitted in the acute stage (50.8% with complicated dissections). The other 41 patients were admitted for chronic dissections, most of them for surgical treatment of aneurysmal degeneration. Temporal analysis demonstrated an increase in the number of patients operated for aortic dissection, mainly due to an increase in chronic patients (33.3% in 2003-2010 vs. 64.4% in 2011-2019) and a clear shift toward endovascular treatment from 2015 onward. Overall in-hospital mortality was 14% and was significantly higher in the chronic phase (acute 5.1% vs. chronic 26.8%; OR 5.30, 95% CI 1.71-16.39; p=0.003) and in patients with aneurysmal degeneration, regardless of the temporal phase. Only one death was recorded in the endovascular group. CONCLUSION: Management of TABD carried an overall mortality of 14% during a 16-year period, but the appropriate use of endovascular technology has substantially reduced in-hospital mortality.

Why do guidelines recommend screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms, but not for asymptomatic carotid stenosis? A plea for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines do not recommend screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS). The rationale behind this recommendation is that detection of AsxCS may lead to an unnecessary carotid intervention. In contrast, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is strongly recommended. METHODS: A critical analysis of the literature was performed to evaluate the implications of detecting AsxCS. RESULTS: Patients with AsxCS are at high risk for future stroke, myocardial infarction and vascular death. Population-wide screening for AsxCS should not be recommended. Additionally, screening of high-risk individuals for AsxCS with the purpose of identifying candidates for a carotid intervention is inappropriate. Instead, selective screening for AsxCS should be considered and should be viewed as an opportunity to identify individuals at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and future cardiovascular events for the timely initiation of intensive medical therapy and risk factor modification. CONCLUSIONS: Although mass screening should not be recommended, there are several arguments suggesting that selective screening for AsxCS should be considered. The rationale supporting such selective screening is to optimize risk factor control and to initiate intensive medical therapy for prevention of future cardiovascular events, rather than to identify candidates for an intervention.

Optimal periprocedural antithrombotic treatment in carotid interventions: An international, multispecialty, expert review and position statement.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) treatment of patients undergoing extracranial carotid artery interventions is a subject of debate. The aim of this multidisciplinary document was to critically review the recommendations of current guidelines, taking into consideration the results of recently published studies. METHODS: The various antithrombotic strategies reported were evaluated for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients undergoing extracranial carotid artery interventions (endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting [CAS] or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). Based on a critical review, a series of recommendations were formulated by an international expert panel. RESULTS: For asymptomatic patients, we recommend low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg/day) or clopidogrel (75 mg/day) with the primary goal to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular event rates rather than to reduce the risk of stroke. For symptomatic patients, we recommend dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) initiated within 24 h of the index event to reduce the risk of recurrent events. We suggest that following transfemoral CAS or TCAR, patients continue DAPT for 1 month after which a single antiplatelet agent is used. High level of evidence to support anticoagulant treatment for patients with carotid artery disease is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The antithrombotic treatment offered to carotid patients should be individualized, taking into account the presence of symptoms, the type of intervention and the goal of the treatment. The duration and type of DAPT (ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel) should be evaluated in future trials.

International Union of Angiology Position Statement on no-option chronic limb threatening ischemia.

This position paper, written by members of International Union of Angiology (IUA) Youth Committee and senior experts, shows an overview of therapeutical approaches for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and absence of 'standard' solutions for revascularization. The aim was to demonstrate the accurate management of the 'no-option' CLTI patient including the wound treatment and the rehabilitation, considering always the goal of the increase of quality of life of the patients.

The Impact of the Proctor Assistance for a Safe Learning Curve in the Development of a Complex Aortic Endovascular Program.

INTRODUCTION: Initiating an endovascular aortic program for treatment of complex aortic aneurysms with fenestrated and branched grafts (FB-EVAR) is challenging. Using a Proctor is one option for training and development of the team. However, this approach has not been formally analyzed. The aim of this study was to analyze the learning curve and the effect of the Proctor regarding safety and effectiveness in FB-EVAR. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed, including all consecutive elective patients submitted to FB-EVAR (including both thoraco-abdominal-TAAA and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms-C-AAA) from 2013 to 2021. Patients were divided into 2 groups, the first operated with the Proctor present and the second without. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality (safety) and technical and procedure success (efficacy). Secondary outcomes included treatment performance (procedure time, blood loss, contrast, and radiation use), re-interventions, aneurysm shrinking, target vessel patency, 30-day mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and overall mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 105 patients were included in the study, 35 operated with Proctor and 70 operated without. The first 20 patients were operated always with the Proctor, and the remaining were operated with the Proctor selectively. Mean age was 71.8 (±7.3) years and 95 patients were male (90.5%). Overall, 62 (65%) patients had C-AAA or extent IV TAAAs and 43 (35%) had extensive TAAAs. There were no significant differences regarding 30-day mortality (Log Rank=0.99), technical success (p=0.4), or procedure success (p=0.8). Mean surgical time was longer in the non-Proctor group (p=0.005), as well as significant intra-operative blood loss (p=0.042). Contrast use (p=0.5) and radiation (p=0.53) were non-significantly different between groups. There were no significant differences regarding length of stay (p=0.4), major adverse events (p=0.6), target vessel patency (Log Rank=0.97), early (p=0.7) and late endoleaks (0.7), aneurysm shrinking (p=0.6), re-interventions (p=0.2), and overall mortality (Log Rank=0.87). CONCLUSION: In our experience, the use of a Proctor to start and accompany our complex endovascular aortic program for FB-EVAR was both safe and effective and may serve as a template by other countries and centers that aim to developing their programs.

Benefits and drawbacks of statins and non-statin lipid lowering agents in carotid artery disease.

International guidelines strongly recommend statins alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering agents to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels for patients with asymptomatic/symptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS/SCS). Lowering LDL-C levels is associated with significant reductions in transient ischemic attack, stroke, cardiovascular (CV) event and death rates. The aim of this multi-disciplinary overview is to summarize the benefits and risks associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin medications for Asx/SCS patients. The cerebrovascular and CV beneficial effects associated with statins, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and other non-statin lipid-lowering agents (e.g. fibrates, ezetimibe) are reviewed. The use of statins and PCSK9 inhibitors is associated with several beneficial effects for Asx/SCS patients, including carotid plaque stabilization and reduction of stroke rates. Ezetimibe and fibrates are associated with smaller reductions in stroke rates. The side-effects resulting from statin and PCSK9 inhibitor use are also highlighted. The benefits associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin lipid lowering agents (e.g. PCSK9 inhibitors) outweigh the risks and potential side-effects. Irrespective of their LDL-C levels, all Asx/SCS patients should receive high-dose statin treatment±ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors for reduction not only of LDL-C levels, but also of stroke, cardiovascular mortality and coronary event rates.

Comparison of Recent Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German-Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients.The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German-Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German-Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.

Optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in 2021: the jury is still out. An international, multispecialty, expert review and position statement.

The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement was to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic. A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies. Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients <75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses. Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high-risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients.

Position Paper on Young Vascular Surgeons Training of the Mediterranean Federation for the Advancing of Vascular Surgery (MeFAVS): State of the Art and Perspectives.

The Mediterranean Federation for the Advancing of Vascular Surgery (MeFAVS) was founded in 2018, with the aim to promote cooperation among vascular professionals within Mediterranean countries. Due to its prominent social and economic impact on national health systems, diabetic peripheral artery was selected as the very first topic to be investigated by the federation. In this second paper, different experiences from delegates of participating countries were shared to define common strategies to harmonize, standardize, and optimize education and training in the Vascular Surgery specialty.

Management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis may need to be individualized: a multidisciplinary call for action. Republication of J Stroke 2021;23:202-212.

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g. silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient's life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

The conundrum of asymptomatic carotid stenosis-determinants of decision and evidence.

Management of asymptomatic carotid disease continues to challenge medical practice and present evidence is often conflicting. Stroke is a significant burden in Public Health and 11% to 15% appear as first neurologic event associated with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Randomized trials provided support for Guidelines and Recommendations to intervene on asymptomatic stenosis, but at a known cost of a high number of unnecessary operations. Conflicting evidence from natural history studies and the widespread use of proper medical management including risk factors control, lowering-lipid drugs and strict control of arterial hypertension have reduced the incidence of strokes associated to asymptomatic carotid disease challenging established practice. Need to identify vulnerable lesions prone to develop thromboembolic brain events and also vulnerable patients at a higher risk of stroke is necessary and essential to further improve effectiveness of our interventions. After review of published literature on natural history of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, diagnostic methods to identify plaque vulnerability and present-day results of both endarterectomy and stenting, a strategy for management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis is suggested aiming to reduce unnecessary interventions and effectively contribute to stroke prevention.

Clinical aspects and present challenges of the seat belt aorta.

OBJECTIVE: Seat belt aorta is rare and difficult to manage. The lack of data and follow-up increases the complexity of treating such patients. We aimed to create a decision algorithm by reviewing our current experience and analyzing the presentation and management of our patients. METHODS: We performed a descriptive case series based on retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients admitted with the diagnosis of seat belt aorta from 2008 to 2018. Seat belt aorta was defined as any blunt abdominal aortic lesion resulting from a seat belt compression mechanism after a car accident. RESULTS: Nine consecutive patients were admitted with the diagnosis of seat belt aorta, all of whom developed lesions in the infrarenal aorta. Eight patients were assessed in the acute phase and one patient presented with late-onset symptoms. Associated injuries were present in all acute patients, and seat belt sign and small bowel injury were present in 88%. One patient presented with a small intimal tear and was treated conservatively. All other patients diagnosed with large intimal flaps (seven patients) and pseudoaneurysm (one patient) underwent open repair in five cases and endovascular repair in three cases. In-hospital mortality for the acute cases was 38%, with no mortality seen during follow-up. Two patients submitted to endovascular repair required reinterventions. CONCLUSIONS: Seat belt aorta is a deadly condition, frequently associated with blunt thoracoabdominal trauma with concomitant injuries; the presence of a seat belt sign or lower limb ischemia must lead to a high diagnostic suspicion. Management must take into account the other concomitant injuries. Follow-up is crucial as most patients are young; they may develop complications and subsequently require further intervention.

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

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 = 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 = 2 [8.3%]; type II, n = 1 [4.2%]; and type III, n = 1 [4.2%]). Thirty-day mortality rate was 14.3% (n = 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 = .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 = .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 = .004), urgent procedure (HR, 4.80; CI, 1.56-14.80; P = .003), zone 0 or zone 1 (HR, 6.34; CI, 1.73-23.18; P = .001), presence of arrhythmia (HR, 3.76; CI, 1.22-11.62; P = .013), and cerebrovascular disease (HR, 4.12; CI, 1.38-12.35; P = .006). A multivariate analysis identified age (HR, 1.11; P = .047) and zone 0 or zone 1 (HR, 4.93; P = .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.