The impact of prophylactic ascending aorta replacement on the long-term prognosis of zone 0 hybrid arch repair.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of prophylactic zone 0 replacement with prosthetic grafts on the long-term prognosis and perioperative safety of zone 0 hybrid arch repair (HAR) when zone 0 is neither dilated nor pathologic. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 115 patients whose zone 0 aorta was neither dilated nor pathologic and who underwent zone 0 HAR from January 2009 to December 2020 and divided then into two groups depending on whether zone 0 was replaced, with 46 patients in the no-replacement group and 69 patients in the replacement group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the baseline difference, and outcomes were compared after IPTW adjustment. The primary end points were overall survival and adverse aortic events (AAEs). The secondary end points were early composite adverse events and other perioperative complications. Subgroup analysis was performed by age, diagnosis, zone 0 maximum diameter and risk stratification. RESULTS: The 5-year IPTW-adjusted overall survival rate was 84% in the no-replacement group 90% in the replacement group (P = .61). With death as a competing risk, the IPTW-adjusted cumulative incidence of AAEs at 5 and 10 years was 23% and 41% in the no-replacement group, and 14% and 25% in the replacement group, respectively (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-1.39; P = .23). Considering proximal complications alone, the replacement group exhibited lower 5-year (3% vs 18%) and 10-year (6% vs 36%) cumulative incidences of proximal complications (sHR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.91; P = .04) after IPTW adjustment. A subgroup analysis demonstrated that the benefits of zone 0 replacement in decreasing AAEs were observed in those aged 60 years or less (sHR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.75; P = .02) and those with type B aortic dissection (sHR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.82; P = .02). Additionally, zone 0 replacement did not increase early composite adverse event morbidity (9% vs 21%; P = .08) or early mortality (7% vs 6%; P = .87). CONCLUSIONS: Although zone 0 was neither dilated nor pathologic, prophylactic zone 0 replacement in zone 0 HAR significantly decreased the incidence of proximal complications, without impairing perioperative safety. Additionally, this strategy was associated with benefits in reducing AAEs in younger patients and patients with type B aortic dissection. Thus, prophylactic zone 0 replacement should be considered for reconstructing a stable proximal landing zone in zone 0 HAR.