Search

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., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare the early-to-midterm outcomes of patients treated with the frozen elephant trunk procedure with aortic balloon occlusion (FET-ABO) versus hybrid repair for aortic arch diseases., Methods: Patients who underwent the FET-ABO (n = 134) and the hybrid procedure (n = 220) from 2017 to 2020 at our institution were analysed retrospectively. Early-to-midterm outcomes were compared using inverse probability weighting. Low-risk and high-risk subgroup analyses were performed according to the cut-off of the additive European System for Cardiac Operative Evaluation value of 6., Results: The present study demonstrated similar 30-day mortality (3.7% vs 8.6%; P = 0.118) and adverse events between the FET-ABO and the hybrid groups. Fewer intraoperative red blood cell transfusions (0.54 ± 1.45 vs 1.26 ± 2.47 U; P = 0.001), decreased total hospital costs (P < 0.001) and considerable early-to-midterm survival [crude: hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.91; P = 0.030; adjusted: HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.91; P = 0.032) were obtained with the FET-ABO compared to the hybrid procedure. The inverse probability weighting method substantiated the foregoing results. Adjusted subgroup analyses suggested that the FET-ABO procedure had a trend towards improved survival in low-risk patients (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.93; P = 0.041) and achieved outcomes comparable to those of the hybrid procedure in high-risk patients (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15-1.42; P = 0.176)., Conclusions: The FET-ABO technique could be better promoted in hospitals lacking experience and equipment and could be more viable and cost-effective for selected patients compared with the hybrid procedure., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients treated by total arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET), aortic balloon occlusion (ABO) technique and hybrid arch repair (HAR). Between January 2017 and July 2019, 643 consecutive patients with aortic arch diseases were eligible for TAR, including 356 in conventional FET, 112 in ABO based on FET, and 175 in HAR. A retrospective cohort analysis of perioperative results was undertaken, performed with inverse probability weighting. The primary endpoint was composite endpoints included 30-day mortality, stroke, paraplegia, hemodialysis, reintubation, and intra-aortic balloon pump or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and visceral dysfunction was secondary endpoint. Overall in-hospital mortality was 2.2% (FET = 2.5% vs ABO = 0 vs HAR = 2.9%, P= 0.210). Parallel early outcomes were demonstrated among three groups. ABO group was associated with significantly shorter circulatory arrest time (5, IQR 3-7 vs 16, IQR 14-18 minutes, P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of visceral dysfunction compared with FET group (25.1% vs 47.3%, P= 0.003). Patients receiving ABO suffered a significantly lower rate of prolonged ventilation (more than 72 hours; P= 0.014). Furthermore, a tendency toward decreasing composite endpoints was suggested in ABO (7.2%) compared with FET (15.5%, P= 0.061) and HAR (19.8%, P= 0.032). ABO technique obtains considerable early clinical outcomes for TAR compared with conventional FET and HAR, which could be a feasible and effective approach for patients with aortic arch diseases., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the objective outcomes of type II hybrid arch repair (HAR) and total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (TAR with FET)., Methods: Data from 528 patients who underwent aortic arch repair from January 2017 to June 2019 were collected, which consisted of 175 type II HAR and 353 TAR with FET. The propensity score-matched analysis identified a subgroup of 90 pairs. Perioperative data and mid-term follow-up results were assessed., Results: There was no significant difference in the composite adverse events (type II HAR, 20.6%, 36/175 vs TAR with FET, 17.8%, 63/353, P = 0.450). Multivariable logistic analysis of the 528 patients showed that the procedure type (type II HAR or TAR with FET) was not associated with composite adverse events, 30-day mortality or stroke. The 3-year survival rates were 84.8% in the type II HAR group and 90.1% in the TAR with FET group (P = 0.12). The 3-year reintervention-free rates in the type II HAR and TAR with FET groups were 98.7% and 96.5% (P = 0.22), respectively. After matching, no significant difference was found in the incidence of composite adverse events or the 3-year survival and reintervention-free rates., Conclusions: No significant clinical differences were found in the early and mid-term outcomes of type II HAR and TAR with FET. The long-term outcomes remain to be investigated. Careful patient selection for individualized approaches is the key to taking full advantage of the 2 surgical procedures., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Total aortic arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) is the standard operation for treating aortic dissection (AD) patients involving aortic arch with high operative risk due to long circulatory arrest (CA). We used aortic balloon occlusion technique that safely reduced the CA time to 5 min in average and investigated whether it can improve the clinical endpoints., Methods: All patients diagnosed with AD and underwent TAR with FET operation (123 with aortic balloon occlusion and 221 with conventional method) in Fuwai Hospital during August 2017 and February 2019 was reviewed in this retrospective observational study., Results: After propensity score matching, the 30-day mortality of aortic balloon occlusion group and conventional group was 4.88% and 11.38% (P = 0.062), respectively. In multivariate analysis, aortic balloon occlusion is one of the factors that reduced the risk for renal and hepatic injury, shortened postoperative conscious revival time, and reduced red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during operation., Conclusions: The aortic balloon occlusion technique, as a perfusion strategy during operation, could alleviate postoperative complication. This method deserves further attention in future clinical practice for its value in treating patients with higher operative risks.

Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of hybrid type II arch repair (HAR) and total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (TAR with FET) for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection patients., Methods: From January 2017 to June 2019, the clinical data of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection patients in a single centre were retrospectively reviewed; there were 92 cases of HAR and 268 cases of TAR with FET, with 56 pairs by propensity score matching., Results: After matching, the composite end points including 30-day mortality, stroke, paraplegia, renal failure, hepatic failure, reintubation or tracheotomy and low cardiac output syndrome were comparable (21.4%, 12/56 in the HAR group vs 21.4%, 12/56 in the TAR with FET group, P = 1.000). The rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) was significantly lower in the HAR group (58.9%, 33/56 vs 80.4%, 45/56, P = 0.031). The distribution of AKI stage according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria was different (P = 0.039), with more patients suffering from high-grade AKI in the TAR with FET group. Multivariable logistic analysis showed that the procedure type (HAR or TAR with FET) was not an independent predictor of composite adverse events or stroke. HAR was identified as a protective factor against AKI (odds ratio 0.485, 95% confidence interval 0.287-0.822; P = 0.007)., Conclusions: In the treatment of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection, no significant differences were found in early outcomes between the 2 groups, but HAR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of AKI., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)