Distal Repair After Total Aortic Arch Replacement With Frozen Elephant Trunk in Patients With Chronic Multilevel Thoracic Aortic Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the management of distal aortic disease after total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk (TAR + FET) in patients with chronic thoracic aortic disease. METHODS: Two centre retrospective study of consecutive patients treated between January 2010 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was 30 day or in hospital death. The secondary endpoint was midterm survival. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). The χ2 or Fisher's exact test was used as appropriate. Estimated survival (standard error) was assessed by calculating the Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator with right censoring of survival data. A p value of < .050 was considered statistically significant. STROBE guidelines were followed. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients (72 men; median age 70 years, IQR 64, 75; median distal aortic diameter 58 mm, IQR 46, 68; 127 aneurysmal disease, 31 chronic dissection) underwent TAR + FET. The peri-operative mortality rate was 10.1% (9/107 elective, 7/51 non-elective). Of 74 (46.8%) patients with a primary distal seal, seven (9.5%) died peri-operatively, the distal seal was maintained during follow up in 51, nine underwent late distal repair (two planned, seven unplanned; one open, eight endovascular; one peri-operative death) with a median interval to unplanned repair of 777 days (IQR 462, 1480), and seven with loss of seal had no intervention. Distal seal failed in 2/28 (7%) patients with a distal seal length > 30 mm and device oversizing > 10%, compared with 12/39 (31%) patients who did not meet these criteria (p = .031). In 84 patients without a primary distal seal, nine (10.7%) died peri-operatively, the distal aorta remained below the size threshold for repair during follow up in 12 patients, 44 had distal repair (median aortic diameter 64 mm, IQR 60, 75; eight open, one hybrid, 35 endovascular repairs; no deaths) at a median of 256 days (IQR 135, 740), and 19 did not have distal repair at the end of the follow up period: six died before planned repair at a median interval of 115 days (IQR 85, 120); eight were considered unfit; one was assessed as fit but declined; and four patients were awaiting assessment. Median follow up was 46 months (IQR 26, 75): no patients were lost to follow up. Estimated ± standard error five year survival was 61.5 ± 4.1%: elective 70.6 ± 4.7%, non-elective 43.2 ± 7.2%. CONCLUSION: TAR + FET achieved primary distal seal in 47% of patients, but late failure occurred in 21%. Distal repair was ultimately indicated in 84% of survivors without a primary distal seal and of these 70% underwent repair, almost 10% died before planned repair, and 13% were considered unfit. Earlier distal endovascular repair and better assessment of patient fitness may improve midterm outcomes.

The Complementary Roles of Open and Endovascular Repair of Extent I - III Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in a United Kingdom Aortic Centre.

OBJECTIVE: A multidisciplinary approach offering both open surgical repair (OSR) and complex endovascular aortic repair (cEVAR) is essential if patients with thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are to receive optimal care. This study reports early and midterm outcomes of elective and non-elective OSR and cEVAR for extent I - III TAAA in a UK aortic centre. METHODS: Retrospective study of consecutive patients treated between January 2009 and December 2021. Primary endpoint was 30 day/in hospital mortality. Secondary endpoint was Kaplan-Meier estimates of midterm survival. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). RESULTS: In total, 296 patients (176 men; median age 71 years [IQR 65, 76]; median aneurysm diameter 66 mm [IQR 61, 75]) underwent repair (222 elective, 74 non-elective). OSR patients (n = 66) were significantly younger with a higher incidence of heritable disease and chronic dissection, while cEVAR patients (n = 230) had a significantly higher prevalence of coronary, pulmonary, and renal disease. Overall, in hospital mortality after elective and non-elective repair was 3.2% (n = 7) and 23.0% (n = 17), respectively, with no significant difference between treatment modalities (elective OSR 6.5% vs. cEVAR 2.3%, p = .14; non-elective OSR 25.0% vs. cEVAR 20.3%, p = .80). Major non-fatal complications occurred in 15.3% (33/215) after elective repair (OSR 39.5%, 17/43, vs. cEVAR 9.3%, 16/172; p < .001) and 14% (8/57) after non-elective repair (OSR 26.7%, 4/15, vs. cEVAR 9.5%, 4/42; p = .19). Median follow up was 52 months (IQR 23, 78). Estimated survival ± standard error at 1, 3, and 5 years for the entire cohort was 89.6 ± 2.0%, 76.6 ± 2.9%, and 69.0% ± 3.2% after elective repair, and 67.6 ± 5.4%, 52.1 ± 6.0%, and 41.0 ± 6.2% after non-elective repair. There was no difference in 5 year survival comparing modalities after elective repair for patients younger than 70 years and those with post-dissection aneurysms. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary approach offering OSR and cEVAR can deliver comprehensive care for extent I - III TAAA with low early mortality and good midterm survival. Further studies are required to determine the optimal complementary roles of each treatment modality.