Patrick Moeller

Have hybrid procedures replaced open aortic arch reconstruction in high-risk patients? A comparative study of elective open arch debranching with endovascular stent graft placement and conventional elective open total and distal aortic arch reconstruction

OBJECTIVE Open total arch procedures have been associated with significant morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple comorbidities. Aortic arch debranching with endovascular graft placement, the hybrid arch procedure, has emerged as a surgical option in this patient population. This study evaluates the outcomes of a contemporary comparative series from one institution of open total arch and hybrid arch procedures for extensive aortic arch pathology. METHODS From July 2000 to March 2009, 1196 open arch procedures were performed, including 45 elective and 7 emergency open total arch procedures. From 2005 to 2009, 64 hybrid arch procedures were performed: 37 emergency type A dissections and 27 elective open arch debranchings. Hemiarch procedures were excluded. RESULTS The hybrid arch cohort was significantly older (P = .008) and had greater predominance of atherosclerotic pathophysiology (P < .001). The incidence of permanent cerebral neurologic deficit was similar at 4% (1/27) for the hybrid arch cohort and 9% (4/45) for the open aortic arch cohort. In-hospital mortality was similar at 11% (3/27) for the hybrid arch cohort and 16% (7/45) for the open aortic arch cohort. However, in the open arch group, there was a significant difference in mortality between patients aged less than 75 years at 9% (3/34) and patients aged more than 75 years at 36% (4/11) (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS Hybrid arch procedures provide a safe alternative to open repair. This study suggests the hybrid arch approach has a lower mortality for high-risk patients aged more than 75 years. This extends the indication for the hybrid arch approach in patients with complex aortic arch pathology previously considered prohibitively high risk for conventional open total arch repair.

Targeting Landing Zone 0 by Total Arch Rerouting and TEVAR: Midterm Results of a Transcontinental Registry

BACKGROUND Landing zone 0, defined as a proximal landing zone in the ascending aorta, remains the last frontier to be taken. Midterm results of total arch rerouting and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) extending into landing zone 0 remain to be determined. METHODS From 2003 to 2011, 66 patients (mean age, 70 years; 68% men) presenting with pathologic conditions affecting the aortic arch (atherosclerotic aneurysms [n = 48], penetrating ulcers [n = 6], type B dissections [n = 6], type B after type A dissections [n = 5], and anastomotic aneurysm [n = 1]) were treated in 5 participating centers. Of these 66 patients, only 12% would have been deemed suitable for any kind of conventional surgical repair because of multisegmental aortic disease or comorbidities. RESULTS In-hospital mortality was 9%. Retrograde type A dissection was observed in 3% of patients. The assisted type I and type III endoleak rate was 0%. Stroke was seen in 5% of patients. Permanent paraplegia was observed in 3% of those studied. Median follow-up was 25 months (8-41 months). There was 1 late type Ib endoleak, which was followed by watchful waiting. Five-year survival was 72%. Five-year aorta-related survival was 96%. No aorta-related reintervention had to be performed in the segments treated. CONCLUSIONS Midterm results of total arch rerouting and TEVAR extending into landing zone 0 are excellent in regard to aorta-related survival and freedom from aorta-related reintervention. Retrograde type A dissection, potentially related to compliance mismatch between the ascending aorta and the stent-graft, warrants further attention. Extended application of this strategy augments therapeutic options in a group of patients who are not suitable candidates for conventional therapy.

Hybrid approaches in the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms: Postoperative and midterm outcomes

BACKGROUND The combined open surgical and endovascular approach for the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms has emerged as a safe treatment modality. This platform may have an especially important role in treating patients of old age and with a greater comorbid burden. We describe our institutional experience with the hybrid aortic arch approach, with midterm outcomes. METHODS From 2005 to the present, 685 patients have undergone thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR); 104 had a hybrid arch repair (open plus endovascular approach). Of these, 47 patients had treatment for an aortic arch aneurysm with or without a proximal ascending aortic aneurysm. All these patients had a median sternotomy approach for arch vessel debranching and antegrade with or without retrograde TEVAR stent grafting of the arch. Results from a prospectively maintained database are reported. RESULTS Twenty-eight patients had type I repair, 8 patients had type II repair, and 11 patients had type III arch hybrid repair. Those with type III repair were excluded from the analysis. Stent graft deployment rate was 100% after arch vessel debranching. Mean age was 71 ± 8 years. Fourteen percent of cases involved a redo sternotomy. Average cardiopulmonary bypass time was 215 ± 64 minutes, with a crossclamp time of 70 ± 55 minutes and a circulatory arrest time of 19 ± 10 minutes. The paraplegia rate was 5.5% (n = 2), with a stroke rate of 8% (n = 3). In-hospital mortality was 8% (n = 3). There were no postoperative endoleaks. The mean length of stay was 17.2 ± 14 days. The median follow-up was 30 ± 21 months. Freedom from all-cause mortality was 71%, 60%, and 48% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The aortic reoperation rate was 2.7% (n = 1). No patient has a type 1 or 3 endoleak at latest follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The hybrid approach to aortic arch aneurysm involving a zone 0 stent graft landing can be safely adopted with good midterm results in a cohort of old patients with significant comorbidity. This procedure can be performed with no type 1 or 3 endoleaks and may represent a technical advancement in the field of aortic arch surgery.

Retrograde and antegrade cerebral perfusion: results in short elective arch reconstructive times.

BACKGROUND Debate remains regarding optimal cerebral circulatory management during relatively noncomplex, short arch reconstructive times. Both retrograde cerebral perfusion with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (RCP/DHCA) and antegrade cerebral perfusion with moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest (ACP/MHCA) have emerged as established techniques. The aim of the study was to evaluate perioperative outcomes between antegrade and retrograde cerebral perfusion techniques for elective arch reconstruction times less than 45 minutes. METHODS Between 1997 and September 2008, 776 cases from two institutions were reviewed to compare RCP/DHCA and ACP/MHCA perfusion techniques. At the University of Pennsylvania, 682 were treated utilizing RCP/DHCA cerebral protection. At the University of Bologna, 94 were treated with ACP/MHCA and bilateral cerebral perfusion. RESULTS Mean cerebral ischemic time and visceral ischemic time differed between RCP/DHCA and ACP/MHCA (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed age more than 65 years, atherosclerotic aneurysm, and cross-clamp time as predictors of the composite endpoint of mortality, neurologic event, and acute myocardial infarction. There was no significant difference in permanent neurologic deficit, temporary neurologic dysfunction, or renal failure, between RCP/DHCA and ACP/MHCA. Mortality was comparable across both techniques. CONCLUSIONS Both RCP/DHCA and ACP/MHCA have emerged as effective techniques for selected aortic arch operations with low morbidity and mortality. Univariate analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes between techniques for aortic reconstruction times less than 45 minutes. Data from this study demonstrate that selective use of either RCP/DHCA or ACP/MHCA provides excellent cerebral and visceral outcomes for elective open aortic surgery with short arch reconstructive times.

Classic hybrid evolving approach to distal arch aneurysms: Toward the zone zero solution

BACKGROUND A combined open surgical and endovascular approach to managing aneurysms of the distal aortic arch (hybrid arch repair) is evolving as a viable treatment option. Our aim is to describe a treatment strategy in high-risk patients and report the technical and clinical success of the hybrid approach to aneurysms involving the distal aortic arch. METHODS From July 2005 until December 2009, 27 consecutive patients with aneurysms of the distal aortic arch were treated via a hybrid arch repair. Of this group, 23 patients underwent aortic arch debranching and revascularization before endovascular stent deployment in the ascending aorta (type I). Four patients required ascending aortic and transverse arch replacement before stent graft deployment (type II). RESULTS A stent graft was successfully deployed in 100% of patients after aortic arch vessel debranching via median sternotomy. The mean age of the patients was 71 ± 7.5 years. The average cardiopulmonary bypass time was 199 ± 84 minutes with an average crossclamp time of 57 ± 53 minutes. Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest was required in 4 patients (all type II). The average length of stay was 17.2 ± 14 days. The complications included stroke in 3 (11%) patients, permanent paralysis in 2 (7%), and perioperative death in 3 (11%) patients. CONCLUSIONS Early results of type I and II hybrid arch repair, in this cohort of patients with mutiple comorbid risk factors, are acceptable and even encouraging. This evolving approach to aneurysms involving the aortic arch may extend the indications for use of endovascular prostheses in the treatment of patients with complex aortic arch disease.

Graft Selection for Aortic Root Replacement in Complex Active Endocarditis: Does It Matter?

BACKGROUND Endocarditis affecting the aortic valve, with abscess formation and root destruction, remains a challenge to treat. Aortic root homografts have been advocated because of a perceived lower risk of infective complications than with other root replacement grafts. However, the theoretical advantage of homografts has not been re-evaluated in the modern era. This report is based on an examination of our results for all aortic root replacements in complex, active endocarditis affecting the aortic valve. METHODS From 2000 to 2010, 134 patients (70.9% male; mean age 58.3±14.8 years) at our institution underwent aortic root replacement for active endocarditis. Ninety of the patients (67.2%) had a previously implanted prosthetic aortic valve. Our findings for these patients included one or more of the following: abscess (n=110, 82.1%), valve vegetation (n=98, 73.1%), and pseudoaneurysm or rupture or both (n=62, 46.3%). We retrospectively reviewed data for the patients from hospital records and the social security data base. RESULTS A mechanical composite graft (MC) was used in 43 of the patients (32.1%), a non-homograft biologic valve conduit (BC) in 55 patients (41.0%), and a homograft (HG) valve in 36 patients (26.9%). There was no significant difference among the groups in the incidence of major complications or in-hospital mortality. During a mean follow-up of 32.1±29.4 months, the rates of readmission, reinfection, and reoperation were similar for the three groups. The mean 5-year survival in the study was 58±9% for the MC group, 62±7% for the BC group, and 58 ± 9% for the HG group, respectively (p=0.48). CONCLUSIONS Aortic root replacement in the presence of complex active infection is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We report that the rates of major complications and late mortality were similar among MC, BC, and HG groups in our study.

Thoracic Endografting Reduces Morbidity and Remodels the Thoracic Aorta in DeBakey III Aneurysms

BACKGROUND The efficacy of endovascular treatment of aneurysms secondary to chronic DeBakey type III aortic dissection (CD3) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes from open and endovascular treatment of CD3 aneurysms, and to determine the efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in remodeling the chronically dissected thoracoabdominal aorta. METHODS From 2005 to 2012, 58 patients underwent open aortic replacement (open) and 31 patients underwent endovascular therapy (TEVAR) for the treatment of CD3 aneurysms. The TEVAR patients were divided into CD3a (n = 12) or CD3b (n = 19) subgroups based upon the DeBakey classification of aortic dissection. Total aortic, true and false lumen diameters were measured at different anatomic locations. True lumen and false lumen indices were calculated to evaluate the impact of TEVAR on remodeling. RESULTS In the open group, operative mortality was 10.3% and the incidence of pulmonary failure, renal failure, and paraplegia was 13.8%, 10.3%, and 12.1%, respectively. There were no operative mortalities in TEVAR patients, and no cases of pulmonary failure, renal failure, or paraplegia. Endovascular therapy stabilized aneurysm size and remodeled the thoracic aorta in 87% of patients. The TEVAR significantly expanded the true lumen and reduced the false lumen within the stent graft in CD3a and CD3b patients (p < 0.001). Thoracic false lumen thrombosis was achieved in 100% of CD3a and in 68% of CD3b patients. CONCLUSIONS In these early results, TEVAR reduces operative morbidity and mortality compared with open aortic replacement in the treatment of CD3 aneurysms. The TEVAR is effective in remodeling the chronically dissected thoracic aorta. Abdominal false lumen patency is maintained in patients with thoracoabdominal dissection-related aneurysms.

Reintervention for endograft failures after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE Thoracic endovascular aortic repair has emerged as an effective therapy for a variety of thoracic aortic pathologic entities. However, endograft failure remains a concern, and its treatment is often challenging. We examined our experience with endograft failure and its treatment by endovascular and open repair. METHODS From January 2000 to January 2012, 680 patients underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair at the University of Pennsylvania, and their charts were reviewed for the late outcomes and follow-up data. RESULTS Of the 680 patients, 73 underwent 80 reinterventions (11.7%) during follow-up. The indications for index thoracic endovascular aortic repair were thoracic aortic aneurysms in 381, type A dissection with frozen elephant trunk in 52, type B dissection in 111, hybrid arch repair in 46, traumatic transection in 37, infection in 10, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer in 25, and others in 18. The median interval from index thoracic endovascular aortic repair to reintervention was 210 days. Endograft failures included endoleak in 45, proximal aortic events in 11, distal aortic events in 15, endograft infection in 3, and others in 6. Endovascular reintervention (n = 80) was performed in 60 patients. In 20 patients, open aortic reconstructive procedures were performed. The overall 30-day mortality was 8.7% (7/80). During follow-up, 10 late deaths occurred. The overall survival in all patients was 81%, 60%, and 52% at 1, 5, and 7 years, respectively. The late survival for patients after reintervention for endograft failure was similar that for the patients who did not require reintervention (P = .31). CONCLUSIONS Reintervention for endograft failure can be performed with acceptable early outcomes. The mid-term survival for patients requiring reintervention for endograft failure was similar to that of the patients without endograft failure. Thus, reintervention for endograft failure should be aggressively considered when indicated.

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.

Durability of Porcine Bioroots in Younger Patients With Aortic Root Pathology: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With Composite Mechanical Roots

BACKGROUND We present a comparison of porcine bioroot and composite mechanical root replacement in a large series of patients younger than 60 years who required full root replacement for true root pathology. METHODS Between 1997 and 2007, we performed 986 aortic root replacement procedures, including 391 porcine bioroots and 515 composite mechanical roots for true root indications. Of these, 504 patients were younger than 60 years old at time of the operation. Porcine bioroots were placed in 138 patients, including 38 St. Jude Toronto Root (St. Jude Inc, St. Paul, MN), 98 Medtronic Freestyle (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN), and 2 Edwards Prima (Edwards Lifesciences Inc, Irvine, CA). Standard univariate, logistic regression, Cox regression, and propensity matching techniques were used. RESULTS To adjust for baseline differences in risk factor profiles, propensity matching yielded a final matched data set of 128 matched pairs, with no differences in preoperative risk factor profile or indication for operation. Overall 30-day operative mortality was 2.3% for porcine bioroot patients vs 1.6% for mechanical root patients (p = 0.6). Root type did not influence early (odds ratio, 0.8; 96% confidence interval, 0.2 to 3.2) or late mortality (hazard risk, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0 0.5 to 3.8). Multivariate predictors of late mortality included (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) age in years (1.01; 1.01 to 1.03), chronic renal failure (3.6; 1.1 to 12.6), and preoperative bacterial endocarditis (3.6; 1.1 to 11.8). Freedom from reoperation was similar between groups; however, bleeding events were more common among mechanical root patients. CONCLUSIONS Porcine bioroots provide durable midterm to late-term outcomes after aortic root replacement for true root indications and are an appealing alternative in younger patients because they limit morbidity associated with anticoagulant-related bleeding.