AUTHOR=Qiao Zhiyu , Chen Suwei , Guo Rutao , Zhong Yongliang , Ge Yipeng , Li Chengnan , Liu Yongmin , Zhu Junming , Sun Lizhong 

TITLE=Comparison of Open Repair vs. the One-Stage Hybrid Extra-Anatomic Technique for Distal Aortic Arch Disease Treatment: Mid-term Outcomes With a Risk-Adjusted Analysis

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

VOLUME=8

YEAR=2021

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2021.725902

DOI=10.3389/fcvm.2021.725902

ISSN=2297-055X

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Objective:</bold> This study aims to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the stented elephant trunk (SET) procedure combined with supra-arch branch reconstruction and one-stage hybrid arch repair combined thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with extra-anatomic bypass in the management of distal arch disease.</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> From January 2009 to January 2019, 97 patients underwent one-stage hybrid arch repair combined with TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass (HAR group), and 206 patients underwent the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction (SET group). We used inverse-probability-of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust baseline differences.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> Before IPTW adjustment, there was no significant difference in operative mortality between the two groups (5.2 vs. 1.0%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.064). The incidences of stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and endoleak also showed no significant differences (4.1 vs. 0.5%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.066; 2.1 vs. 1.5%, <italic>P</italic> = 1.000; 0 vs. 1.0%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.831; 6.2 vs. 1.9%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.113, respectively). After IPTW adjustment, the incidences of stroke, SCI, and AKI showed no significant differences between the two groups (1.8 vs. 1.1%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.138; 0.8 vs. 1.6%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.448; and 0 vs. 0.7%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.148, respectively). However, the HAR group tended to have higher operative mortality and incidence of endoleak than the SET group (12.4 vs. 1.3%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.01; 9.9 vs. 1.8%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.031, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, open repair decreased the risks of endoleak (odds ratio [OR], 0.171, 95% CI, 0.060–0.401; <italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.001) and operative mortality (OR, 0.093, 95% CI, 0.027–0.238; <italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.001). The overall survival and event-free survival of the HAR group were significantly lower than those of the SET group (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.001).</p><p><bold>Conclusion:</bold> One-stage hybrid arch repair combined TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass and the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction both provided good postoperative treatment outcomes for distal arch disease. However, hybrid arch repair increased the risks of endoleak and operative mortality. The SET procedure provided better mid-term survival than hybrid arch repair without increasing operative mortality. Carefully selecting the indications for the procedure, while receiving close long-term follow-up, may improve the survival rate of patients undergoing hybrid arch repair.</p>