Dataset Information

Aortic arch aneurysms and dissection-open repair is the gold standard.

ABSTRACT: The aortic arch repair is one of the most complex surgeries and carries a high risk of complications as well as mortality. Since 1975, when the arch repair was first done by Randall B. Griepp using hypothermic circulatory arrest, many new technologies were introduced. But even with the use of antegrade and retrograde perfusion techniques and improvement of surgical techniques and grafts, the rate of mortality, cerebral, spinal, and visceral damage was much higher as compared to any other cardiac surgeries. With further developments aimed at less invasive approaches, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) along with de-branching of supra-aortic vessels or the frozen elephant trunk was introduced. Here, in this article, we review the myriad of approaches to the aortic arch and have come to a conclusion that while traditional open surgery is considered as the gold standard for treatment of extensive aortic arch pathologies, one school of thought suggests hybrid techniques such as the frozen elephant trunk and aortic arch vessel de-branching as more appropriate procedures for high-risk patients, where co-morbidities may contraindicate cardiopulmonary bypass and longer operative times required for traditional repair. No randomized trials are present to compare between open and hybrid or endovascular procedure in normal or high-risk patients. The meta-analysis of most of the studies defines open surgery as the gold standard for arch pathology because the hybrid procedures did not provide any proven survival benefits or decrease in stroke rate and spinal ischemia when compared to open surgery in early, mid, or long-term results.

SUBMITTER: Srivastava S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7525865 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Aortic arch aneurysms and dissection-open repair is the gold standard.

Srivastava Swarnika S Bhan Anil A

Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 20190522 Suppl 2

The aortic arch repair is one of the most complex surgeries and carries a high risk of complications as well as mortality. Since 1975, when the arch repair was first done by Randall B. Griepp using hypothermic circulatory arrest, many new technologies were introduced. But even with the use of antegrade and retrograde perfusion techniques and improvement of surgical techniques and grafts, the rate of mortality, cerebral, spinal, and visceral damage was much higher as compared to any other cardiac ...[more]

PMID: 33061079

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Importance:Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies. Objective:To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019. Exposures:Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture. Results:Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years. Conclusions and Relevance:Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.

Project description:ObjectiveMortality after open repair for emergent complex abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is poorly defined. This study evaluated the 30-day mortality of open complex AAA repair performed for rupture or other emergent indication using a national surgical registry. We subsequently identified factors associated with mortality.MethodsThe targeted vascular module from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify patients undergoing open repair for juxtarenal and suprarenal AAAs or type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAAs) for rupture or other emergent indication from 2011 to 2017. Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors independently associated with mortality.ResultsWe included 374 patients who underwent an emergent complex open AAA repair during the study period. There were 142 (38%) cases performed for rupture with hypotension, 141 (38%) for rupture without hypotension, 40 (11%) for symptomatic AAA, and 51 (14%) for another indication. The distribution by aneurysm type was 224 juxtarenal AAAs, 122 suprarenal AAAs, and 28 type IV TAAAs. Overall, there was a 30-day mortality of 32% (118 deaths). For those with juxtarenal AAA repair, 67 (30%) patients died within 30 days; there were 38 (31%) deaths within 30 days in those with suprarenal AAA, and 13 (46%) deaths within 30 days in those with type IV TAAA. On univariate analysis, preoperative variables associated with death were increasing age, use of a transperitoneal surgical approach, lower preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, low baseline albumin concentration (<3.5 g/dL), need for preoperative transfusion, low body mass index (<18.5 kg/m2), and hypotension at presentation. Intraoperative variables associated with mortality were supraceliac clamp location and concurrent renal revascularization. On multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with death included rupture with associated hypotension (reference: other emergent indication; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.28; confidence interval [CI], 1.75-5.41; P < .001), age >60 years (reference: <60 years; AOR, 1.59; CI, 1.18-2.13; P = .002), longitudinal laparotomy incision (reference: retroperitoneal; AOR, 3.28; CI, 1.75-6.16; P < .001), and supraceliac cross-clamp (reference: clamp above one renal artery; AOR, 2.14; CI, 1.31-3.50; P = .003).ConclusionsNearly one-third of patients die within 30 days of emergent open complex AAA repair. Mortality is particularly high for patients with type IV TAAAs, approaching 50%. Predictors of 30-day mortality include rupture with associated hypotension, increasing age, supraceliac clamp location, and longitudinal transperitoneal repair approach. These results will help inform surgical decisions preoperatively and intraoperatively.

Dataset Information

Aortic arch aneurysms and dissection-open repair is the gold standard.

Publications

Aortic arch aneurysms and dissection-open repair is the gold standard.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets