Long-term outcomes for hybrid aortic arch repair.

OBJECTIVE: Since its inception in the early 2000s, hybrid arch repair (HAR) has evolved from novel approach to well-established treatment modality for aortic arch pathology in appropriately selected patients. Despite this nearly 20-year history of use, long-term results of HAR remain to be determined. As such, objectives of this study are to detail the long-term outcomes for HAR within an expanded classification scheme. METHODS: From August 2005 to August 2022, 163 consecutive patients underwent HAR at a single referral institution. Operative approach was selected according to an institutional algorithm and included zone 0/1 HAR in 25% (n = 40), type I HAR in 34% (n = 56), and type II/III HAR in 41% (n = 67). Specific zone 0/1 technique was zone 1 HAR in 31 (78%), zone 0 with innominate snorkel (zone 0S HAR) in 7 (18%), and zone 0 with single side-branch endograft (zone 0B HAR) in 2 (5%). The 30-day and long-term outcomes, including overall and aortic-specific survival, as well as freedom from reintervention, were assessed. RESULTS: The mean age was 63 ± 13 years and almost one-half of patients (47% [n = 77]) had prior sternotomy. Presenting pathology included degenerative aneurysm in 44% (n = 71), residual dissection after prior type A repair in 38% (n = 62), chronic type B dissection in 12% (n = 20), and other indications in 6% (n = 10). Operative outcomes included 9% mortality (n = 14) at 30 days, 5% mortality (n = 8) in hospital, 4% stroke (n = 7), 2% new dialysis (n = 3), and 2% permanent paraparesis/plegia (n = 3). The median follow-up was 44 month (interquartile range, 12-84 months). Overall survival was 59% and 47% at 5 and 10 years, respectively, whereas aorta-specific survival was 86% and 84% at the same time points. At 5 and 10 years, freedom from major reintervention was 92% and 91%, respectively. Institutional experience had a significant impact on both early and late outcomes: comparing the first (2005-2012) and second (2013-2022) halves of the series, 30-day mortality decreased from 14% to 1% (P = .01) and stroke from 6% to 3% (P = .62). Improved operative outcomes were accompanied by improved late survival, with 78% of patients in the later era vs 45% in the earlier era surviving to 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: HAR is associated with excellent operative outcomes, as well as sustained protection from adverse aortic events as evidenced by high long-term aorta-specific survival and freedom from reintervention. However, surgeon and institutional experience appear to play a major role in achieving these superior outcomes, with a five-fold decrease in operative mortality and a two-fold decrease in stroke rate in the latter half of the series. These long-term results expand on prior midterm data and continue to support use of HAR for properly selected patients with arch disease.

Mid-term outcomes of aortic valve repair using an anatomically shaped internal annuloplasty ring.

OBJECTIVES: The Hemispherical Aortic Annuloplasty Reconstructive Technology (HAART) ring is a rigid, internal and geometric device. The objective of this article is to assess the mid-term outcomes of aortic valve repair (AVr) using this prosthesis. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was used to obtain outcomes for adult patients undergoing AVr using the HAART ring between September 2017 and June 2023. All aortic patients at our institution undergo life-long surveillance with regular assessment and valve imaging. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients underwent AVr using the HAART device: 53 had a trileaflet valve and 18 a bicuspid valve. The median age was 54 years, and most were male (79%). Many required concomitant intervention: 46% had a root procedure and 77% an arch repair. There were no in-hospital deaths, and the median postoperative stay was 5 days. At a mean follow-up of 3.9 (±1.1) years, freedom from reoperation was 94%. Late imaging demonstrated: zero trace (25%), 1+ (54%), 2+ (15%) and 4+ (6%) aortic insufficiency (AI). Eleven patients have ≥moderate AI under surveillance, all of whom have a trileaflet valve (21% of trileaflet patients). Four patients required reoperation: 3 for ring dehiscence and 1 for endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: Although early results using the HAART device are encouraging, mid-term results raise concern as 21% of trileaflet patients developed recurrent ≥moderate AI by 4 years post-repair. We experienced 3 incidences of ring dehiscence requiring reoperation. Based on this, we recommend caution using the sub-annular approach for stabilization in patients with trileaflet aortic valves. Long-term results are needed to assess outcomes against established techniques.

Hybrid repair of acute type B dissection with aberrant right subclavian artery and bicarotid trunk.

Patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) often present as an emergency. Operative repair of TBAD can be indicated for selected patients in the setting of hemodynamic instability or rupture. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair of TBAD has achieved significant popularity. Variant aortic arch anatomy can present a significant clinical challenge in patients with an inadequate proximal landing zone for thoracic endovascular aortic repair. A three-stage, hybrid aortic arch debranching and endovascular repair of a ruptured TBAD in a patient with a bicarotid trunk and an aberrant right subclavian artery was successfully performed using a unique technical approach.

Surgical explantation of a failed transcatheter aortic valve.

With transcatheter aortic valve replacement being increasingly utilized in a younger and lower risk population, we can expect to see larger numbers of patients presenting with structural deterioration of aortic valves replaced by the transcatheter route that now require explantation and surgical replacement.   Surgical aortic valve replacement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is associated with operative morbidity and mortality rates significantly higher than those seen in the setting of surgical replacement of the native valve, which had a 30-day mortality of 12-20% in recent series. Centers performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in lower risk patients with longer expected lifespans and a higher probability of late structural deterioration of the transcatheter aortic valve replacement should carefully consider their choice of valve type (balloon-expandable versus self-expanding) and patient anatomy, including annulus and root diameter, at the time of the initial valve intervention. Further, one should not forget the mechanical surgical aortic valve replacement option in younger patients with risk factors for early structural valve deterioration such as obesity, metabolic syndrome, and chronic kidney disease. The objectives of this tutorial are to describe the preoperative workup for a patient with late structural valve deterioration after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, detail the explantation approach specific to self-expanding valves, and illustrate the key decisions and techniques needed for subsequent surgical aortic valve replacement.