Impact of nondiameter aortic indices on surgical eligibility: Results from the Treatment in Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm: Surgery Versus Surveillance (TITAN: SvS) randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Traditional criterion for intervention on an asymptomatic ascending aortic aneurysm has been a maximal aortic diameter of 5.5 cm or more. The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association aortic guidelines adopted cross-sectional aortic area/height ratio, aortic size index, and aortic height index as alternate parameters for surgical intervention. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of using these newer indices on patient eligibility for surgical intervention in a prospective, multicenter cohort with moderate-sized ascending aortic aneurysms between 5.0 and 5.4 cm. METHODS: Patients enrolled from 2018 to 2023 in the randomization or registry arms of the multicenter trial, Treatment In Thoracic Aortic aNeurysm: Surgery versus Surveillance, were included in the study. Clinical data were captured prospectively in an online database. Imaging data were derived from a core computed laboratory. RESULTS: Among the 329 included patients, 20% were female. Mean age was 65.0 ± 11.6 years, and mean maximal aortic diameter was 50.8 ± 3.9 mm. In the one-third of all patients (n = 109) who met any 1 of the 3 criteria (ie, aortic size index ≥3.08 cm/m2, aortic height index ≥3.21 cm/m, or cross-sectional aortic area/height ≥ 10 cm2/m), their mean maximal aortic diameter was 52.5 ± 0.52 mm. Alternate criteria were most commonly met in women compared with men: 20% versus 2% for aortic size index (P < .001), 39% versus 5% for aortic height index (P < .001), and 39% versus 21% for cross-sectional aortic area/height (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of patients in Treatment In Thoracic Aortic aNeurysm: Surgery versus Surveillance would meet criteria for surgical intervention based on novel parameters versus the classic definition of diameter 5.5 cm or more. Surgical thresholds for aortic size index, aortic height index, or cross-sectional aortic area/height ratio are more likely to be met in female patients compared with male patients.

Aortic arch endovascular branch and fenestrated repair: Initial Canadian experience with novel technology.

Objective: The objective is to describe the initial Canadian experience using novel aortic arch branched endograft technologies. Methods: We performed a retrospective consecutive case series of all patients undergoing aortic arch branched repair with newly available endograft technology since 2020 at our site. We describe the patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and postoperative outcomes. Results: Eleven patients received arch branched endografts, indicated for penetrating aortic ulcer in seven patients (64%), arch degeneration after prior aortic dissection repair in three (27%), and acute aortobronchial fistula in one patient (9%). Their average age was 72 ± 7 years. Complete arch repair from zone 0 to 4 was performed in six cases (55%); the remaining repairs landed proximally in zones 1 or 2. Seven repairs used a single retrograde facing inner branch (thoracic branch endoprosthesis; W.L. Gore & Associates), three used double antegrade inner branch (Bolton Relay; Terumo Interventional Systems), and one emergent case used double in situ fenestrations. Seven repairs (64%) used an adjunctive extra-anatomic bypass to complete great vessel perfusion, two of which were created during a prior aortic repair. Inferior vena cava balloon inflow occlusion during deployment was used in all cases. No mortalities, transient or permanent spinal cord paralysis, myocardial infarction, dialysis dependence, venous thromboembolism, or bleeding requiring reintervention occurred. No patient undergoing elective arch branch repair experienced a stroke. The one patient undergoing emergent repair did suffer a stroke. The median length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 2-8 days). Two endoleaks developed: a type Ia endoleak successfully treated with a Palmaz stent (Cordis) during the index admission, and a type II endoleak with ongoing sac regression on postoperative follow-up. Postoperatively, one patient suffered a suspected aortic graft infection that was treated with lifelong antibiotics. During a mean radiographic follow-up of 7.2 months, no cases of branch vessel instability (ie, no migration, reintervention, arterial rupture, intraluminal thrombus, occlusion, stenosis, or kinking of the branch grafts) developed. Three patients experienced sac regression of >5 mm, and no patient experienced continued postoperative dilation. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest reported Canadian volume of aortic arch repair using novel branched or fenestrated technology. The series demonstrates that a multidisciplinary program and properly selected patients can yield excellent results using endovascular repair for complex aortic arch pathology.

A Systematic Review of Total Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair: A Promising Technology.

BACKGROUND: Total endovascular aortic arch repair (TEAAR) represents an emerging alternative for the treatment of aortic arch disease in patients at prohibitive risk for open surgery. A systematic review of TEAAR was performed to delineate early outcomes with this new technology. METHODS: All studies (excluding single-patient case reports) of CE-certified "custom made" or "off-the-shelf" zone 0 stent graft deployments were included. The primary search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL registry was supplemented with searches of Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference abstracts (within last 3 years), and a hand search of citations within relevant articles. Articles underwent 2-stage screening by 2 independent reviewers before inclusion. RESULTS: Fifteen relevant investigations were identified. Indications for TEAAR were chronic arch dissection with degenerative aneurysmal disease (54%, 148/273), pure arch aneurysm (41%, 112/273), penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (2%, 5/273), and type IA endoleak from a zone 2 thoracic endograft (1%, 3/273). Double-branch (70%, 192/273), triple-branch (19%, 53/273), and single-branch (into innominate artery; 10%, 28/273) devices were used. Adjunct left carotid-subclavian bypass occurred in 90% of double- and single-branch procedures. Procedural success with TEAAR was 93% (95% CI 85.8%-96.3%). The proportion of all-cause mortality was 16% (95% CI 8%-26%), stroke 14% (8%-24%), peripheral vascular events 7% (1%-33%), and myocardial infarction 4% (2%-7%). Endoleaks were identified in 13% (7%-25%) of the study population. CONCLUSIONS: TEAAR represents an emerging option for the management of aortic arch disease wth high procedural success rates and acceptable early outcomes in a high-risk patient population.

The Aortic Team Model for the Management of the Distal Arch, Descending Thoracic and Thoracoabdominal Aorta: Appraisal at 3 Years.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess feasibility, logistical challenges, and clinical outcomes associated with the implementation of an Aortic Team model for the management of distal arch, descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic disease. METHODS: An Aortic Team care pathway was implemented in November 2019. Working as a unit, two cardiac surgeons, two vascular surgeons, an interventional radiologist, a cardiologist, and an anesthesiologist collectively determined care decisions via multispecialty presence at an Aortic Clinic. Cardiac and vascular surgeons operated in tandem for open procedures. Interventional radiology participated alongside cardiac and vascular for endovascular procedures. Cardiology aided in medical therapies for heritable and degenerative disease, and had a lead role for genetics and high-risk pregnancy referrals. The model spanned three hospitals. Clinical outcomes at 3 years were assessed. RESULTS: There were 35 descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal surgeries and 77 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs. Endoarch devices were used in 7 cases (Gore Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis, 4, Terumo RelayBranch, 3) and an endothoracoabdominal device in 4 cases (Cook Zenith t-branch). The Aortic Clinic acquired 456 patients, with yearly increases (54 patients [year 1], 181 patients [year 2], 221 patients [year 3]). For surgery, mortality was 8.6% (3/35), permanent paralysis 5.7% (2/35), stroke 8.6% (3/35), permanent dialysis 0%, and reinterventions 8.6% (3/35). For endovascular cases, mortality was 3.9% (3/77), permanent paralysis 3.9% (3/77), stroke 5.2% (4/77), permanent dialysis 1.3% (1/77), and reinterventions 16.9% (13/77). CONCLUSION: An Aortic Team model is feasible and ensures all treatment options are considered. Conventional open thoracoabdominal procedures showed acceptable outcomes. Endoarch technology shows early promise.

Zone 0 Aortic Arch Reconstruction Using the RelayBranch Thoracic Stent Graft.

Endovascular therapies have had a considerable impact on contemporary management of thoracic aortic disease. Still, with the anatomic challenges of the aortic arch, endovascular experience with devices that traverse the arch and deploy in the Zone 0 position remains limited. We report the first Canadian experience with the RelayBranch Thoracic Stent Graft (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL) with Zone 0 deployment for total endovascular aortic arch repair in a patient at very high risk for redo open surgery. We demonstrate safe deployment of the device and successful treatment of a type 1A endoleak. Features of the RelayBranch design that mitigate challenges of arch deployment are also discussed.

Les traitements endovasculaires ont eu un impact considérable sur la gestion contemporaine des pathologies de l'aorte thoracique. Pourtant, en raison des contraintes anatomiques de la crosse aortique, l'expérience endovasculaire avec des dispositifs qui traversent la crosse et se déploient dans la zone 0 reste limitée. Nous rapportons la première expérience canadienne de l'endoprothèse thoracique RelayBranch avec déploiement (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL) en zone 0 pour une réparation endovasculaire totale de la crosse aortique chez un patient présentant un risque très élevé de reprise de chirurgie ouverte. Nous décrivons le déploiement en toute sécurité du dispositif et le traitement réussi d'une endofuite de type 1A. Enfin, nous examinons les caractéristiques du système RelayBranch qui limitent les difficultés liées au déploiement du dispositif dans la crosse aortique.

Rapid prediction of adverse outcomes for acute normotensive pulmonary embolism: derivation of the Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism score.

BACKGROUND: Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has a wide spectrum of outcomes, but the best method to risk-stratify normotensive patients for adverse outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective cohort study of acute PE patients admitted from emergency departments in Calgary, Canada, between 2012 and 2017 was used to develop a refined acute PE risk score. The composite primary outcome of in-hospital PE-related death or haemodynamic decompensation. The model was internally validated using bootstrapping and the prognostic value of the derived risk score was compared to the Bova score. RESULTS: Of 2067 patients with normotensive acute PE, the primary outcome (haemodynamic decompensation or PE-related death) occurred in 32 (1.5%) patients. In simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index high-risk patients (n=1498, 78%), a multivariable model used to predict the primary outcome retained computed tomography (CT) right-left ventricular diameter ratio ≥1.5, systolic blood pressure 90-100 mmHg, central pulmonary artery clot and heart rate ≥100 beats·min-1 with a C-statistic of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.93). Three risk groups were derived using a weighted score (score, prevalence, primary outcome event rate): group 1 (0-3, 73.8%, 0.34%), group 2 (4-6, 17.6%, 5.8%), group 3 (7-9, 8.7%, 12.8%) with a C-statistic 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.91). In comparison the prevalence (primary outcome) by Bova risk stages (n=1179) were stage I 49.8% (0.2%); stage II 31.9% (2.7%); and stage III 18.4% (7.8%) with a C-statistic 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: A simple four-variable risk score using clinical data immediately available after CT diagnosis of acute PE predicts in-hospital adverse outcomes. External validation of the Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism score is required.

Multidimensional Analysis of Descending Aortic Growth After Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: After repair of acute type A aortic dissection, typical geometric variables of conventional aortic surveillance focus on maximum diameter and its rate of growth, potentially missing important geometric changes elsewhere. We determined additional information provided by a semiautomated, 3-dimensional (3D), nonlinear growth model of the descending thoracic aorta after repair of type A aortic dissection. METHODS: Computed tomographic angiography data were retrospectively collected after hemiarch repair of type A aortic dissection. The descending aorta was systematically reconstructed to generate a 3D model made up of individual segments. The baseline and follow-up diameters were measured semiautomatically for each segment, and the nonlinear interval growth was determined. RESULTS: The fastest growing segment expanded at a rate of 3.8 mm/y (interquartile range, 2.2 to 5.4 mm/y) vs 0.6 mm/y (interquartile range, -0.3 to 1.7 mm/y) when measured at the original site of maximum diameter (P < .01). The maximum baseline diameter was a poor predictor of location with fastest growth (r = 0.10, P > .1). Using the society recommended growth limits, a greater proportion of patients would be considered "at risk" when assessed by our method vs conventional surveillance measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our model identifies areas of rapid aortic growth after repair of type A dissection that would likely be missed using current surveillance techniques. The increased precision, resolution, and reproducibility provided by our technique may improve on limitations of current surveillance techniques, provide novel geometric data on aortic remodeling, and contribute to the pursuit of a comprehensive patient-specific approach to aortic risk stratification.

Extended-arch repair for acute type-A aortic dissection: perioperative and mid-term results.

OBJECTIVES: Extended-arch techniques offer the potential to comprehensively treat acute type-A aortic dissection (ATAAD), but add surgical complexity compared to the standard hemiarch technique. This study describes both perioperative and mid-term outcomes following the introduction of an extended-arch technique for ATAAD. METHODS: Ours is a retrospective single-centre observational study of 95 consecutive patients with ATAAD from 2011 to 2016. The decision to perform extended-arch or hemiarch repair was individualized based on clinical and radiological features. Extended-arch repair was defined as replacement of the ascending aorta and arch with reimplantation of head vessels with or without distal endovascular extension. Clinical follow-up was 100% complete. Cross-sectional double-oblique measurements were performed for aortic remodelling analysis. RESULTS: Extended-arch (n = 28) and hemiarch (n = 67) repair resulted in a in-hospital mortality of 10% (n = 3) and 10%, (n = 7), and permanent neurological deficit rate of 7% and 12%, respectively. At a mean imaging follow-up duration of 2.7 ± 1.5 years, false lumen thrombosis was achieved in 57% and 9% of patients undergoing extended-arch and hemiarch repair, respectively. Rate of growth in the proximal descending aorta was 0.7 ± 2.3 mm/year in the extended-arch group vs 2.7 ± 3.9 mm/year in the hemiarch group. At a mean clinical follow-up time of 3.0 ± 1.6 years, open surgical aortic reoperation was 0% in the extended-arch group and 22% in the hemiarch group. CONCLUSIONS: Extended-arch repair of ATAAD can be introduced in the acute setting without increase in perioperative mortality or morbidity. At mid-term follow-up, extended-arch for ATAAD improves aortic remodelling and reduces the need for open surgical reoperation.

Hybrid Arch for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: When to Deploy the Endograft? Debate: Frozen versus Staged?

Advances in open and endovascular techniques have resulted in novel approaches to repair of acute Type A aortic dissection. Hybrid arch procedures involve open arch resection and stent grafting of the descending aorta with stent graft insertion in one of two ways: Frozen or Staged. In this article, pros and cons of the two different paradigms of emerging hybrid arch techniques for acute Type A aortic dissections are discussed.

Infrarenal to Innominate Artery Collateral Complicating a Chronic Residual Type B Dissection.

Residual type B aortic dissection following open surgical repair of a type A thoracic aortic dissection can sometimes be complicated by collateral blood supplies, which can impact existing flow patterns and result in progressive aneurysmal dilatation of the thoracic false lumens. We report a unique case that describes the clinical presentation of an infrarenal to innominate artery collateral blood flow that complicated a chronic residual type B dissection, which was diagnosed in a timely manner using multimodality imaging, and successfully managed through an innovative minimally invasive endovascular treatment strategy (without thoracotomy) with no neurological sequela.

Association of Mortality and Acute Aortic Events With Ascending Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: The natural history of ascending aortic aneurysm (AsAA) is currently not well characterized. Objective: To summarize and analyze existing literature on the natural history of AsAA. Data Sources: A search of Ovid MEDLINE (January 1, 1946, to May 31, 2017) and Embase (January 1, 1974, to May 31, 2017) was conducted. Study Selection: Studies including patients with AsAA were considered for inclusion; studies were excluded if they considered AsAA, arch, and descending thoracic aneurysm as 1 entity or only included descending aneurysms, patients with heritable or genetic-related aneurysms, patients with replaced bicuspid aortic valves, patients with acute aortic syndrome, or those with mean age less than 16 years. Two independent reviewers identified 20 studies from 7198 unique studies screened. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was performed according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guideline; 2 reviewers independently extracted the relevant data. Summary effect measures of the primary outcomes were obtained by logarithmically pooling the data with an inverse variance-weighted random-effects model. Metaregression was performed to assess the relationship between initial aneurysm size, etiology, and the primary outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary composite outcome was incidence of all-cause mortality, aortic dissection, and aortic rupture. Secondary outcomes were growth rate, incidence of proximal aortic dissection or rupture, elective ascending aortic repair, and all-cause mortality. Results: Twenty studies consisting of 8800 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.75 [9.47] years; 6653 [75.6%] male) with a total follow-up time of 31 823 patient-years were included. The mean AsAA size at enrollment was 42.6 mm (range, 35.5-56.0 mm). The combined effect estimate of annual aneurysm growth rate was 0.61 mm/y (95% CI, 0.23-0.99 mm/y). The pooled incidence of elective aortic surgery was 13.82% (95% CI, 6.45%-21.41%) over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 4.2 (2.9-15.0) years. The linearized mortality rate was 1.99% per patient-year (95% CI, 0.83%-3.15% per patient-year), and the linearized rate of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, aortic dissection, and aortic rupture was 2.16% per patient-year (95% CI, 0.79%-3.55% per patient year). There was no significant relationship between year of study completion and the initial aneurysm size and primary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: The growth rate of AsAA is slow and has implications for the interval of imaging follow-up. The data on the risk of dissection, rupture, and death of ascending aortic aneurysm are limited. A randomized clinical trial may be required to understand the benefit of surgical intervention compared with surveillance for patients with moderately dilated ascending aorta.

Zone 2 Arch Replacement and Staged Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

Potential benefits of extending the distal extent of repair for acute type A aortic dissection beyond hemiarch has prompted the exploration of various total arch repair approaches. A zone 2 arch is advocated by some surgeons but the nomenclature and technique have not been described.

Classification and outcomes of extended arch repair for acute Type A aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: Distal extent of repair in patients undergoing surgery for acute Type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is controversial. Emerging hybrid techniques involving open and endovascular surgery have been reported in small numbers by select individual centres. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the outcomes following extended arch repair for ATAAD. A classification system is proposed of the different techniques to facilitate discussion and further investigation. Methods: Using Ovid MEDLINE, 38 studies were identified reporting outcomes for 2140 patients. Studies were categorized into four groups on the basis of extent of surgical aortic resection and the method of descending thoracic aortic stent graft deployment; during circulatory arrest (frozen stented elephant trunk) or with normothermic perfusion and use of fluoroscopy (warm stent graft): (I) surgical total arch replacement, (II) total arch and frozen stented elephant trunk, (III) hemiarch and frozen stented elephant trunk and (IV) total arch and warm stent graft. Perioperative event rates were obtained for each of the four groups and the entire cohort using pooled summary estimates. Linearized rates of late mortality and reoperation were calculated. Results: Overall pooled hospital mortality for extended arch techniques was 8.6% (95% CI 7.2-10.0). Pooled data categorized by surgical technique resulted in hospital mortality of 11.9% for total arch, 8.6% total arch and frozen stented elephant trunk, 6.3% hemiarch and frozen stented elephant trunk and 5.5% total arch and 'warm stent graft'. Overall incidence of stroke for the entire cohort was 5.7% (95% CI 3.6-8.2). Rate of spinal cord ischaemia was 2.0% (95% CI 1.2-3.0). Pooled linearized rate of late mortality was 1.66%/pt-yr (95% CI 1.34-2.07) with linearized rate of re-operation of 1.62%/pt-yr (95% CI 1.24-2.05). Conclusions: Perioperative results of extended arch procedures are encouraging. Further follow-up is required to see if long-term complications are reduced with these emerging techniques. The proposed classification system will facilitate future comparison of short- and long-term results of different techniques of extended arch repair for ATAAD.

Early Results of the PETTICOAT Technique for the Management of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

Conventional surgical techniques for acute Type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) generally fail to address residual dissection in the descending aorta. The persistence of a false lumen is associated with visceral malperfusion in the acute setting and adverse aortic remodeling in the chronic setting. Hybrid aortic arch repair techniques may improve perioperative and long-term mortality by expanding the true lumen and obliterating the false lumen. However, there is a limit to the extent of aortic coverage due to the concomitant risk of spinal cord ischemia. In Type B dissection, the PETTICOAT (Provisional Extension To Induce Complete Attachment) technique, which entails stent graft coverage of the primary intimal tear followed by bare metal stent placement distally, may improve true lumen caliber and promote false lumen thrombosis without increasing the risk of spinal cord ischemia, as intercostal branches remain perfused through the bare metal stents. The technique of hybrid arch with surgical creation of a Dacron landing zone covering a stent graft in the proximal descending aorta and bare metal stents in the thoraco-abdominal aorta is a promising concept in the treatment of ATAAD.

Complications at the Proximal Landing Zone of Endovascular Stent Grafts Deployed in Surgically Replaced Ascending Aorta.

BACKGROUND: The ascending aorta, with its hostile angulations and forces, is the next frontier in the evolution of endovascular surgery. Type II hybrid arch repair, involving surgical replacement of the ascending aorta, arch debranching, and stent graft deployment in the ascending aortic graft, offers an opportunity to study the behavior of an endovascular prosthesis in the ascending aorta. We report complications seen at the proximal landing zone after type II hybrid arch repair. METHODS: A dedicated imaging protocol was used to monitor 20 consecutive patients who underwent type II hybrid arch repair at a single center from June 2009 to July 2014. RESULTS: Mean age was 66 years (range, 47 to 82 years). Mean imaging follow-up was 34 months (range, 12 to 64 months). There was 1 operative death (5%). Bird beaking (>5 mm of nonapposition) of the stent graft at the proximal landing zone occurred in 12 patients, and >20 mm of bird beaking occurred in 7 patients. Proximal landing zone complications occurred in 4 patients (20%), comprising 2 type Ia endoleaks, 1 graft migration, and 1 graft infolding detected on postoperative days 4, 11, 5, and 755, respectively. Three patients underwent endovascular reintervention for proximal landing zone complications. There were no late deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic aortic stent grafts may be prone to proximal landing zone complications when deployed in the ascending aorta. Bird beaking is common when endografts are deployed in the Dacron (DuPont, Wilmington, DE) ascending aorta. Angulation issues will likely need to be overcome by stent graft refinement to enable future closed chest approaches to the ascending aorta.

Midterm results of endovascular stent grafts in the proximal aortic arch (zone 0): an imaging perspective.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular options to repair the arch and ascending aorta are rapidly evolving. Little is known about the durability of endovascular devices deployed at this location. This report describes a single-centre experience with the novel application of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) by examining clinical and radiological outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for a cohort of patients undergoing TEVAR of the arch or ascending aorta, or both, at a single centre from November 2008-July 2012. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were included in the study, with mean imaging follow-up of 38 months (range, 15-72 months). Two complications at the proximal landing zone in the ascending aorta were identified: 1 endoleak and 1 infolding identified at 3 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. Clinically, both these complications were attributed to the bird-beak configuration at the proximal landing zone site. At up to 72 months of follow-up, there were no cases of retrograde dissection of the native sinus of Valsalva. There were no cases of stent graft migration, graft fracture, open surgical reintervention for aortic pathologic conditions, or late mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Early outcomes suggest that the current generation of thoracic aortic endografts can be placed in the complex anatomy of the ascending aorta and aortic arch without a high incidence of early graft fracture or migration. Future endeavors will need to focus on techniques to achieve optimal apposition with the curves of the ascending aorta. These findings are important as indications for endovascular aortic therapies expand to address proximal aortic pathologic conditions.

Results of type II hybrid arch repair with zone 0 stent graft deployment for complex aortic arch pathology.

OBJECTIVE: To review the early results of a less invasive, single-stage hybrid arch procedure involving replacement of the ascending aorta, arch debranching, and zone 0 antegrade stent graft deployment. METHODS: Between May 2007 and January 2012, 20 patients with both acute and chronic aortic pathology were managed at 2 institutions with a type 2 hybrid arch procedure. Indications included diffuse atherosclerotic aneurysm, false lumen expansion of chronic aortic dissections, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer, and acute type A dissection. Mean age was 67 ± 16.8 years with a mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score of 29.5 ± 19.4. Postoperative clinical and imaging follow-up was complete to a mean 18.5 ± 15.3 months. RESULTS: Successful zone 0 stent graft deployment was achieved in all cases. There was 1 in-hospital mortality (5%). A second death occurred at 40 days postoperation. Other complications included a permanent neurologic deficit in 1 patient (5%), transient paraplegia in 4 patients (20%), and 3 patients had respiratory complications (15%). There were no cases of renal failure requiring dialysis. Stent-related complications were identified in 4 patients (20%), including 3 type I endoleaks, none of which were at zone 0. There was 1 type II endoleak and a case of stent infolding. Two patients required a second successful endografting procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This single-stage hybrid arch procedure offers an alternative approach to complex diffuse aortic pathology involving the arch. Replacement of the ascending aorta provides a safe location for zone 0 stent graft deployment, eliminating complications of proximal deployment in a native diseased aorta.