Dataset Information

Prosthetic Graft Dilation at the Aortic Arch in the Era of Hybrid Aortic Surgery.

ABSTRACT: Objective: This study aims to evaluate the chronological size changes of the prosthetic graft in the aortic arch, which is used as a landing zone for a subsequent stent grafting in hybrid aortic surgery. Materials and Methods: Eighty-five patients who underwent total aortic arch replacement followed by computed tomography follow-up for at least 30 months after the surgery were included in the study. Results: Prosthetic grafts used were Hemashield (Maquet, Rastatt, Germany), J-Graft (Japan Lifeline Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and Triplex (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan). There was an initial increase in diameter compared to package size after implantation (Hemashield, 1.04±0.035 vs. J-Graft, 1.06±0.027 vs. Triplex, 1.04±0.023, p=0.13). Significant difference in graft dilation ratio was observed in Triplex (1.18±0.062) at long-term compared to Hemashield (1.07±0.052, p<0.001) and J-Graft (1.10±0.071, p<0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that age (r=0.002; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0001-0.0037; p=0.035), knitted-type prosthesis (r=0.089; 95% CI, 0.0610-0.1163; p<0.0001), and prevalence of cerebral vascular disease (r=0.038; 95% CI, 0.0030-0.0732; p=0.034) were independently associated with graft dilation after surgery. Conclusion: Prosthetic graft selection and appropriate sizing of the stent graft should be considered for each individual undergoing hybrid aortic surgery to maintain sufficient oversizing of the stent graft.

SUBMITTER: Hori D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7315240 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prosthetic Graft Dilation at the Aortic Arch in the Era of Hybrid Aortic Surgery.

Hori Daijiro D Kusadokoro Sho S Shimizu Toshikazu T Kimura Naoyuki N Yamaguchi Atsushi A

Annals of vascular diseases 20200601 2

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the chronological size changes of the prosthetic graft in the aortic arch, which is used as a landing zone for a subsequent stent grafting in hybrid aortic surgery. Materials and Methods: Eighty-five patients who underwent total aortic arch replacement followed by computed tomography follow-up for at least 30 months after the surgery were included in the study. Results: Prosthetic grafts used were Hemashield (Maquet, Rastatt, Germany), ...[more]

PMID: 32595793

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReconstruction of the aortic arch and its three supra-aortic vessels remains a great surgical challenge with postoperative complications. We present a simplified total arch reconstruction with a modified stent graft (s-TAR) and compared its operative outcomes with conventional total arch replacement (c-TAR).MethodsThis retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from all consecutive patients who had ascending aortic aneurysm with extended aortic arch dilation and underwent simultaneous ascending aorta replacement and aortic arch reconstruction with the s-TAR or c-TAR between 2018 and 2021. The indication for intervention was maximum diameter of ascending aorta >55 mm and aortic arch in zone II >35 mm.ResultsA total of 84 patients were analyzed: 43 in the s-TAR group and 41 in the c-TAR group. No inter-group differences were found for sex, age, comorbidities, or EuroSCORE II results. All patients were successfully treated with s-TAR or c-TAR, and none died intraoperatively. Cardiopulmonary bypass, selective cerebral perfusion, and lower-body circulatory arrest time were significantly shorter in the s-TAR group, which also had a lower incidence of prolonged ventilation and transient neurologic dysfunction. No patient in either group experienced permanent neurologic dysfunction. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and paraplegia was markedly increased in the c-TAR group; however, no such events were observed in the s-TAR group. Both perioperative blood loss and the incidence of reoperation for bleeding were significantly lower in the s-TAR group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 0% in the s-TAR group and 4.9% in the c-TAR group. The s-TAR group had significantly shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and lower total hospitalization costs.ConclusionsThe s-TAR technique is a safe and effective alternative for total arch reconstruction with shorter operation time, lower rate of postoperative complications and lower total hospitalization costs compared with c-TAR.

Project description:The role of hybrid repair in the management of aortic arch pathology, and long-term outcomes with these techniques, remains uncertain. We report a decade of experience with hybrid arch repair (HAR) and assess institutional practice patterns with regard to the use of hybrid and open techniques.Hybrid and open total and distal arch procedures performed between July 2005 and January 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained, institutional aortic surgery database. Perioperative morbidity and mortality, freedom from reintervention, and long-term survival were calculated. Hybrid and open procedural volumes over the study period were assessed to evaluate for potential practice pattern changes.During the study period 148 consecutive procedures were performed for repair of transverse and distal aortic arch pathology, including 101 hybrid repairs and 47 open total or distal arch repairs. Patients in the hybrid repair group were significantly older with a greater incidence of chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic lung disease. Perioperative mortality and outcomes were not significantly different between the hybrid and open groups, aside from decreased median length of stay after hybrid repair. Need for subsequent reintervention was significantly greater after hybrid repair. Unadjusted long-term survival was superior after open repair (70% 5-year survival open vs 47% hybrid; P = .03), although aorta-specific survival was similar (98% 5-year aorta-specific survival open vs 93% hybrid; P = .59). Institutional use of HAR decreased over the final 3 years of the study, with an associated increased use of open total or distal arch repairs. This was primarily the result of decreased use of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. Concurrent with this apparent increased stringency around patient selection for HAR, perioperative morbidity and mortality was reduced, including avoidance of retrograde type A dissection.HAR remains a viable option for higher-risk patients with transverse arch pathology with perioperative outcomes and long-term aorta-specific survival similar to open repair, albeit at a cost of increased reintervention. This observational single-institution study would suggest decreased use in more recent years in favor of open repair due to avoidance of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. This decline in the institutional use of native zone 0 hybrid repairs was associated with improved perioperative outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs.Search methodsThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations.Selection criteriaWe considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion.Main resultsNo RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review.Authors' conclusionsDue to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.

Dataset Information

Prosthetic Graft Dilation at the Aortic Arch in the Era of Hybrid Aortic Surgery.

Publications

Prosthetic Graft Dilation at the Aortic Arch in the Era of Hybrid Aortic Surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets